Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Personal Cases

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to ensure that a compassionate posting or compassionate leave is granted to 22768090 Craftsman W. B. Cosslett, Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers, 3, Spring Gardens, Cadoxton, Barry, Glamorgan, now serving in the Middle East, who prior to his call-up for National Service was abroad for long periods during service in the Mercantile Marine, for reasons stated in correspondence from the hon. Member for Barry; and, in particular, because of the ill-health of the wife, mother and mother-in-law of Craftsman Cosslett, and the strain upon his wife, following the birth of a child.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): No, Sir. I have had inquiries made and I am glad to say that the health of this soldier's wife, mother and mother-in-law is now satisfactory.

Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this? Is he aware that in normal circumstances the man would not have been called up at all because he was a member of the Mercantile Marine and it was only anxiety about the health of so many relatives which detained him on shore? It was under those circumstances that he was called up. He has now been abroad continuously for very many years. Cannot a more humane attitude be adopted towards this case in view of all the circumstances?

Mr. Head: The man was available for call-up and was called up and sent to the Army. The grounds on which he has asked for compassionate release are not

really those which justify it, since the health of the relatives concerned is, I understand, satisfactory.

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is yet in a position to make a statement about the case of 22288898 M. Brennan, I/R Norfolks, B.A.P.O.I., Hong Kong.

Mr. Head: I have written to the hon. Lady about this case.

Mrs. Braddock: I thank the Minister for the letter I received this morning, but will he bear in mind that this man's service was excellent in his first period, and it was only when he found himself back during the second period of service that he intimated to his commanding officer about his previous period and why he had been discharged? If notice had been taken of that immediately, is it not a fact that he would not have got into these difficulties, and does not some responsibility fall upon those in the Services for this man's conduct within the last few months?

Mr. Head: I can assure the hon. Lady that I looked into this case very carefully, and, before this man intimated about his previous service, he had got a very poor conduct sheet and was causing a great deal of trouble. The man is now going to leave the Army, and I think on the whole, although I regret it, that after what has happened that will be the best course.

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that 22781161 Drummer Boy N. S. H. Gallagher, 1st Battalion East Lancashire Regiment, age 17, now at Barnard Castle, Durham, in detention, is refused a mattress to sleep on; and whether he will institute a full inquiry at once and make a statement.

Mr. Head: I am having a full inquiry made into this case.

Mrs. Braddock: Will the Minister tell us what steps he has taken to see that the Army Regulations are carried out and that permission is given to sleep on a mattress? Is it not very bad that this attitude has been adopted?

Mr. Head: I shall not have any information as to what happened until the inquiry has taken place, but as soon as it has finished I shall write to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to several inquiries which are in contemplation. What is the reason for them all? Is there something wrong at the War Office, and if so, is the right hon. Gentleman giving it his attention?

Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that the Army totals 440,000 men and that occasionally some of them get into trouble.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when we were sitting on the Government side of the House—[An HON. MEMBER: "There was no Army worth talking about."] Ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when we were sitting on the Government side of the House there was hardly a complaint of this kind and that we did not need to hold inquiries because we had a firm grip on the administration.

Mr. Head: I do not want to squabble about the period when the British Army was best. It is a very fine Army, whoever is looking after it, but, as the right hon. Gentleman should be able to recall, when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in charge there was lots of trouble. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor had terrible troubles, as had the right hon. Gentlemen himself, and I remember a troopship going to Korea about which he misled the House.

Mr. Shinwell: Can I ask whether it is possible, Mr. Speaker, to have a court of inquiry to decide when I misled the House, as is suggested by the Minister?

T.A. Officers

Mr. Glover: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers now serving on a Territorial Army engagement have battle experience; how many of these officers are over 40 years of age; and how many of the officers in the field force units are still category A1.

Mr. Head: To get the exact details asked for would involve a special and laborious inquiry. I do know that in March this year about 3,400 officers in the Territorial Army are over 40.Nearly all of them served during the late war. As regards medical fitness, the exact position in Field Force units is not recorded day by day, but if these units

had to be embodied the number of their officers unfit for worldwide service would be small.

Mr. Glover: If 3,000 or 4,000 officers are over 40, is my right hon. Friend happy about the command position in the Territorial Army when these officers reach retiring age in three or four years time in view of the fact that they are the ones with battle experience and also that today the Territorial Army is the Reserve Army and must, therefore, be ready for embodiment and action in a matter of three or four weeks? Does my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not ask supplementary questions which are too long.

Mr. Head: It is a big problem in the Territorial Army to find volunteers to replace the officers who are growing older. When we have a long period of peace, as we hope to have, there always arises a moment when we cease to have battalion commanders with battle experience.

Mailbags, Singapore (Loss)

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for War in what circumstances 56 mailbags containing approximately 250,000 undelivered letters from and to soldiers serving in Korea have been discovered at Singapore; and what action has been taken.

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for War to make a statement about the letters mislaid at Singapore.

Mr. Head: The mail concerned was restricted to letters from or due for delivery to passengers in troopships. The number of letters delayed is not some 250,000, but is between 80 and 90 thousand. Special steps have been taken to supervise the delivery and collection of mails in troopships. The man alleged to be responsible is to be tried by court-martial.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Press announced that one non-commissioned officer has been detained in connection with the matter? Is he really telling the House that the superintendence of a pile of 80,000 to 90,000 letters which had been kept for some weeks is a matter within the sole responsibility of one non-commissioned officer?


Will our Forces in the Far East be able to operate without this very useful man?

Mr. Head: I very much regret this incident in connection with this mail. At the moment it is the subject of a court-martial. As soon as that is over there will also be a court of inquiry, which has had to be suspended until the court-martial is over, because evidence cannot be given in two places at once. The man is attached to the civil Post Office in Singapore, and for this reason supervision comes from that organisation.

Mr. Mellish: Why not put the senior officers in the Army Postal Services on court-martial?

Mr. Head: That will arise.

Household Brigade, Polo Club (Grooms)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for War why troopers of the Household Brigade have been used as grooms for the Household Brigade Polo Club and other polo clubs associated with the Brigade of Guards; how many such troopers have been employed for this purpose since January, 1953; and why they were withdrawn from other duties and training for this purpose.

Mr. Head: Under authority given to recognised Army saddle clubs, four men were employed in this way between April and August, 1953.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it not scandalous that troopers should be employed at public expense for private entertainment for officers in off-duty hours, and is it not time that we stopped treating the Brigade of Guards as the only Government-subsidised social club in the country and brought an end to this sort of practice?

Mr. Head: This concession, which was made to the Army as a whole, was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I do not feel that it is for me to be less keen about saddle clubs than the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the very first I have ever heard of it? I am completely uninformed, and since I am completely uninformed on this subject, will he hold an inquiry and have it conducted in public?

Mr. Head: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that an eye for detail is a great asset in the War Office.

W.D. Vehicles (Rear Lights)

Colonel J. H. Harrison: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the interests of road safety, he will arrange for all War Department vehicles to be fitted with two efficient rear lamps as soon as possible.

Mr. Head: By 1st October next year, all War Department vehicles will be fitted with twin red rear reflectors. Nearly all the vehicles obtained by the Army since the war are fitted with two rear lights and we are now examining the problem of modifying the remaining vehicles.

Colonel Harrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if he can have a second rear light placed on these vehicles, as provided in a Bill passed in the last Session of Parliament, it may help to avoid accidents, and is he aware that many of the vehicles in B.R.S. are having that done at the present time?

Recruiting Figures

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War why Army recruiting figures for the first nine months of 1952 and 1953 have fallen from 43,711 to 35,763, respectively.

Mr. Head: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on 14th July this year.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Are not these figures—and I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can deny the figures for the year ending September, 1953—clear evidence of the present Government's dismal failure to honour their past assurances that they knew how to encourage voluntary recruitment for the Regular Army?

Mr. Head: The figures last year were an all-time record for the Army. This year they are not so good. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows the reason why, I should be most grateful if he would tell me. It is a topic of great interest within the War Office, and they are anxious to know if it is possible to


make the position better. Although the figures for this year are less than for the preceding 12 months, they are far from being disappointing.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Minister accept a memorandum from me explaining why the present figures are falling?

Home Guard (Enrolments)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War the latest recruiting figures for the Home Guard in the county of London and elsewhere.

Mr. Head: By 15th November 34,162 men were enrolled and 27,305 had joined the Reserve Roll for enrolment in an emergency. This is an increase of just under 3,000 in the past month. On the same date in the county of London 844 men were enrolled and 423 were on the Reserve Roll.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would help Home Guard recruiting if the Government agreed that Reserve liabilities of all men over 40 would be waived if they joined the Home Guard?

Mr. Head: There is at present an arrangement whereby any man on the Reserve who wishes to join the Home Guard may apply to the War Office for permission to do so, and, provided he has not an absolutely vital rôle in the Service, that permission is granted.

Unexploded Missiles, Ridsdale

Mr. Speir: asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fatalities earlier this year, what search for unexploded missiles has recently been conducted in the Ridsdale area of Northumberland; and what was the result of such search.

Mr. Head: This is being done. So far nothing dangerous has been found, but the search is continuing.

Mr. Speir: Is the Minister aware that although this accident happened nearly seven months ago not only have two boys been killed, but a dog has been blown up and other missiles have been found in the area by other children? Should a search not have been conducted and completed by now?

Mr. Head: There are a number of cases of dangerous obstacles all over the

country. We have only a limited number of personnel, and we have given certain priorities. This was started as quickly as possible, but we have concentrated to some extent on agricultural land.

Security Patrols, Kenya (Instructions)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for War what instructions are given to troops on security patrols in Kenya.

Mr. Head: These instructions are, in general terms, the normal orders given to troops operating on internal security duties where part of the population is hostile. Special detailed instructions are given with regard to examination of documents, challenging, and when troops may open fire.

Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Secretary of State for War whether a copy of these instructions can be placed in the Library along with the other documents which he is to place there, and will he say whether it is possible to employ on this difficult and dangerous work officers who have experience of similar work and conditions, or whether that would be administratively impossible?

Mr. Head: It would be nice if all officers operating in, say, Kenya had experience of similar work, but it so happens that with battalions going round such a situation hardly ever occurs. What is being done is that special instructions are issued, training takes place, and we have to carry on with the officers who are there.

British Guiana (Christmas Leave)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War what Christmas leave is to be given to soldiers now in British Guiana.

Mr. Head: So far as military duties permit, Christmas and New Year's Day will be holidays. The question of local leave is difficult, but those who get private invitations will get leave whenever possible.

Mr. Hughes: Does that mean that the Scottish soldiers and the Welsh Fusiliers in Guiana are not to be allowed home


for Christmas? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they are now afraid that they will be sent to Buganda, and that if the Colonial Secretary is going to mess up things in all parts of the world, the Scottish soldiers will never come home?

National Service (Compassionate Cases)

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to ensure fuller consideration of applications from National Service men for compassionate leaves or postings; and, in particular, that wherever possible, two members of the same family shall not be required to perform their National or Reserve Service at the same time.

Mr. Head: It is my view and intention that all applications for compassionate leave should be most carefully investigated and sympathetically considered. They must, however, be restricted to real cases of hardship. In considering applications for deferment of Reserve training, the absence of another member of the family in the Services is always taken into account, if it contributes to the grounds of hardship.

Mr. Gower: Is the Minister aware that I am not asking him to revolutionise the system of call-up but merely to take a more generous view of these applications? Will he bear in mind particularly the hardship that can result to a family when a number of people are called up at the same time?

Mr. Shurmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider more sympathetically than in the past the question of a National Service man who is the only child, whose father has died a few months previously to his call-up and within three months that man goes abroad, and a woman is left with a nervous break-down? I have had a number of cases of men who have been sent abroad without any consideration whatever.

Mr. Head: We try to consider each case on its merits, but it is not altogether easy to arrive at a decision. The kind of case outlined by the hon. Gentleman is, I should think, the kind of case for which compassionate leave would have been granted.

Mr. Shurmer: It has not been granted in the past.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Horticultural Produce (Import Duties)

Mrs. Castle: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on horticultural tariffs.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now make a statement about the imposition of a tariff on imported horticultural produce, in general, and on foreign tomatoes, in particular.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes).

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his proposals announced yesterday, since they involve increases of anything from 100 per cent. to 400 per cent. on a large range of fruit and vegetables, must mean a steep increase in the cost of living, and that as the housewife will now, for example, have to pay 2d. duty on an early lettuce, which before came in quota free, can the right hon. Gentleman say which consumer interests he consulted before making this abject surrender to the National Farmers Union?

Mr. Amory: I think that the increases proposed are very moderate, and I would remind the hon. Lady that a high and stable home production is in the interests of both consumers and of producers. I would also remind her that the cost of living has now been almost stable for 16 months.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the additional measure of protection for horticultural producers in the United Kingdom, notably in Worcestershire and in Kent, announced in Cmd. 9018, is warmly welcomed by all these interests which have been penalised heavily in the last few years by unrestricted continental imports?

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland the house wives are disgusted at this agreement, and has he made any inquiry as to why tomatoes in the Clyde Valley, which is the growing district of tomatoes, are always 6d. a lb. more than in England?


Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that prices are stabilised in the roof because they cannot get higher than the roof?

Mr. Amory: I suggest to the hon. Lady that those are the kind of points which we may discuss usefully when we come to consider the affirmative Resolution.

Mr. Jay: Can the Minister answer the question of my hon. Friend by saying which consumers' representatives he consulted?

Mr. Amory: Organisations representing all interests, producers, distributors and consumers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which consumers?"]—I am unable to say which, but if the hon. Lady will put down a Question, I shall do my best to answer it.

Exports to China

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will now grant licences for the export of small generating sets to China;

(2) if he will now grant licences for the export of steel tubes and telephone cables to China.

Mr. Amory: The export to China of steel tubes, telephone cable and generating sets of all sizes is prohibited in all the countries which are members of the Strategic Controls Consultative Group, and we are therefore not in a position to license this trade.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that his assertion is quite untrue? Does he not know that telephone cables are being exported from Belgium, that steel tubes are being exported from Germany, and will he also say in what way small generating sets are considered more strategic than the motor cars on which the embargo has been lifted?

Mr. Amory: As regards the first part of the Question, all the members of the Consultative Group are in line on this matter, and all the items I have mentioned are prohibited by agreement, so that if what the hon. Gentleman says is so, I shall be grateful if he will let me have information on those specific points. As to whether small generating sets are more

strategic than motor cars, I can only say that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government and the other members of the Consultative Group, they are.

Mr. de Freitas: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many motor vehicles have been exported to China in each of the last three years.

Mr. Amory: Exports of motor vehicles from this country to China in the last three years have been negligible. There were two in each of the years 1950 and 1951, one in 1952, and none this year up to the end of October.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that recent visitors to Peking report that it is as full of new American cars as Grosvenor Square? Is he further aware that what is good for General Motors is good for this country? What is he going to do to overtake the American lead which Senator McCarthy has established in this export?

Mr. Amory: We have been making inquiries into this point, but there is no evidence at present to show that the embargo is not being adhered to by the other members of the Group.

Mr. de Freitas: Is it not a fact that, through Japan, these cars are being exported from the United States and straight on into China?

Mr. Amory: We have no evidence of that at present. If the hon. Gentleman has, I should be glad if he would let me have it.

Mr. Robson Brown: Is the Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in this country, whatever the Ministry may feel, that considerable tonnages of this kind of material are going into China from the U.S.A. at this time, and, while there are strong representations and attacks on this country from the United States of America in this respect, will my right hon. Friend take steps to check this matter and bring the evidence before the House?

Mr. Amory: I have already said that we are endeavouring to make inquiries, but my hon. Friend will realise that we can only act on specific evidence. That is why I am anxious that if any hon. Member has any, he will let me have it.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Government propose to the United States Government that Senator McCarthy might inquire into General Motors?

Mr. Mikardo: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chinese have been able to buy large quantities of motor cars and steel tubes and generating sets and other things in many parts of the world by paying for them with the several hundred millions of dollars which they have got through exports to the United States over the last three years?

Mr. Amory: I am not aware of that on present evidence.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of these allegations, will the Minister call for a report from our representative in Peking?

Mr. Amory: As I said, inquiries are being made. We have had already an interim report and are expecting a further report from our representative in Peking.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Are we to understand from the Minister's reply that no one in the Board of Trade up to the present knows anything at all about these series of imports through the back door, from America via Japan into China?

Mr. Amory: I think that I have already made it clear that we can only act on definite evidence, and definite evidence is lacking on the allegations made.

Mr. de Freitas: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall take the opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for licences have been received for orders from China for British motor cars; and how many licences have been issued.

Mr. Amory: One formal application has been made this year, which was approved.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister say whether we have now the enthusiastic co-operation of the Government in promoting the sale of motor cars to China?

Mr. Amory: Small cars can now be exported to China and we should like to see that trade in small cars increased.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it not a fact that Austins have a contract with China for £1,500,000 worth of motor vehicles which are awaiting licences from the Board of Trade? Could not the Minister say something about that?

Mr. Amory: The question which I was asked was what applications we have had, and the only definite application we have had is the one to which I have referred.

Machinery Imports (Report)

Mr. Stevens: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the report of the Wilson-Smith Committee on Duty-free Imports of Machinery; and if he is aware that an early report is necessary.

Mr. Robson Brown: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects that the committee, which is considering the duty-free entry of machinery, will be making their report, particularly having regard to the financial difficulties which many small manufacturers are experiencing in the matter of import of special types of machinery not manufactured in this country; and the effect that this is having, both upon productivity and our export trade.

Mr. Amory: I understand that the committee hope to complete their report early next year. The committee are, I know, aware that it is desirable that the report on this complex and difficult subject should be presented as soon as possible.

Mr. Stevens: Will my right hon. Friend once more stress that urgency, because much of this machinery is used for the production of articles for which there is a substantial export demand, and the sooner we have the report the sooner there will be hope of increased exports?

Mr. Amory: I agree entirely as to the importance of this question, and I know that the committee will not delay the matter one moment longer than it can help.

Mr. Robson Brown: Whilst thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that there are a large number of small firms with limited capital


in this country engaged on important export work who find this embargo extremely difficult and embarrassing to them, and any relief would be a great help to them?

Mr. Amory: That is the type of question which I am sure the committee is considering.

Development Areas

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade which local authorities he has consulted with a view to removing areas from the list of those scheduled as Development Areas under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): None, Sir. No occasion to do so has yet arisen.

Mr. Jay: Will the Minister think very carefully before interfering with arrangements which have proved so successful but which have by no means finished the job?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, I can give the hon. Member that assurance, but I am sure that he will agree that it is the duty of the President of the Board of Trade to bear in mind the provisions of Section 7 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that this is a matter of great interest to Scotland, and can he give an assurance that this sort of thing is not being considered at all?

Mr. Strauss: It would be entirely improper to give an assurance that the President of the Board of Trade is going to ignore the provisions of a section of a statute, but there is no cause for apprehension. If the right hon. Gentleman will study the provisions of Section 7, he will note that before the President takes any action or asks Parliament for approval, which will be necessary, he has to consult the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. Can you help us, Mr. Speaker? Can something be done to make the Minister's voice more cheerful? It is making us so unhappy on this side of the House.

American Economic Aid

Mr. Palmer: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make avail able details of the consultancy service to be initiated by the National Union of Manufacturers with the £5,000 to be granted to them from counterpart funds derived from American Economic Aid.

Mr. H. Strauss: The National Union of Manufacturers is engaging a technical assistance officer, whose duty it will be to keep members of the National Union informed about technical developments, to advise generally on measures to improve productivity and on the best sources for specialised advice on technical matters. He will be available for consultation by non-members of the National Union.

Mr. Palmer: While recognising the generosity that made this assistance available, may I ask the Minister whether British manufacturers are now so poor and bankrupt that they cannot provide at their own expense the kind of technical service which this consultancy service is supposed to give?

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member would be wrong in concluding that they are not providing some of the funds necessary for this purpose. This is an additional grant.

Mr. Palmer: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will name the trade and employers associations which are to receive a share of the £72,000 total grant from counterpart funds derived from American Economic Aid; and the sum allocated to each association.

Mr. H. Strauss: My right hon. Friend cannot yet give this information since discussions are still in progress, but he expects to be able to do so soon.

Mr. Palmer: asked the President of the Board of Trade the terms and conditions on which he has invited applications for loans to industry from the revolving loan fund made available from counterpart funds derived from American Economic Aid.

Mr. H. Strauss: I would refer the hon. Member to the explanatory leaflet of which I am sending him a copy.

Fforestfach Trading Estate

Mr. P. Morris: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure the maximum use of the Fforestfach Trading Estate where excellent sites are available for every kind of light industry.

Mr. H. Strauss: We bring this Estate and the facilities it offers to the notice of industrialists at every suitable opportunity.

Mr. Morris: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman invite his right hon. Friend to modify the rents in the interests of the small business man who is anxious to avail himself of the sites there? Is he further aware that the Swansea local authority is anxious that the initiative which it took in acquiring this Estate and arranging for the Board of Trade to have it should not be nullified?

Mr. Strauss: My right hon. Friend shares the hon. Member's desire that the excellent opportunities offered by this Estate should be used. The question of rent is quite separate.

American Tobacco Purchase

Mr. Gaitskell: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how he proposes to ensure that the recent purchase of tobacco under the United States Mutual Security Act, 1953, does not displace usual marketings of the United States of America or friendly countries:
(2) how he proposes to ensure that the tobacco recently purchased under the United States Mutual Security Act, 1953, is not resold or transhipped to other countries and does not involve the resale or transhipment of additional quantities of other tobacco.

Mr. H. Strauss: Our reserves of tobacco are so low, and manufacturers are so anxious to improve them, that my right hon. Friend regards the possibility of other stocks or purchases being displaced by the tobacco acquired under the Mutual Security Act as remote. My right hon. Friend has nevertheless required importers to give written undertakings that(a) they will treat this tobacco as an addition to stocks which will be kept at the higher level, (b) they will maintain their United States tobacco

purchasing programme this year at the level previously contemplated, and (c) the tobacco will not be resold or transhipped to other countries in an unmanufactured state. Tobacco cannot be exported except under licence.

Mr. Gaitskell: Am I to understand from that reply that this tobacco will be put to stock and left in stock permanently so that there will never be any increase in consumption?

Mr. Strauss: No, that would not be the right conclusion.

Mr. Gaitskell: In that case, how will the hon. Gentleman satisfy the American Government if he does not increase consumption?

Mr. Strauss: It is not a question of how we are going to satisfy the American Government because, of course, we have already done so.

German Exports (Subsidies)

Mr. Grimond: asked the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the extent to which British ex ports, particularly of locomotives, have been adversely affected by exports from Western Germany competing with the aid of a Government subsidy.

Mr. Fienburgh: asked the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has that the West German Government are directly or indirectly subsidising the export of capital goods in competition with this country; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

Mr. Amory: I have no evidence that the export of capital goods, including locomotives, is directly subsidised by the Government of Western Germany, but all German exporters receive some benefit from the remission of a proportion of their tax payments. Her Majesty's Government have taken a lead in international efforts to eliminate export incentives of this kind which amount to indirect subsidies.

Mr. Grimond: Does not this remission amount in fact to a subsidy and, if so, is it in accordance with the international obligations of Germany?

Mr. Amory: We are taking up through the various agencies the question of the discontinuation of all export subsidies by Government.

Mr. Fienburgh: Is the Minister further aware that credit terms offered to various German manufacturers are such as to appear to be disguised subsidies? Will he also look into that matter?

Mr. Amory: We are looking into that matter too, but though the question of credit available may have some influence on these lost orders, price is the main reason.

Sunderland Trading Estates (Factory)

Mr. F. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on the future use of Messrs. Price Tailors Limited, Sunderland Trading Estates factory.

Mr. H. Strauss: No, Sir. I cannot add to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave on 12th November.

Mr. Willey: Will the Minister realize that this factory is now standing idle and that this is very disturbing to us in Sunderland? Is he aware that we should like to see some evidence of vigorous intervention by his Department?

Mr. Strauss: I can assure the hon. Member that everything possible has been done and that the company which he has named is receiving every help from the Board of Trade.

Rank Organisation (Booking Arrangements)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations have been made to his Department by the National Film Finance Corporation about the booking practices of two of the major cinema circuits; and what action he proposes to take;
(2) if he is now in a position to state that the assurances given to his Department in 1948 by two major film circuits to the effect that film bookings were made separately on behalf of the two circuits are still being fully honoured.

Mr. H. Strauss: Since the debate on the Second Reading of the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Bill on the25th November, I have ascertained that the Chairman of the National Film Finance Corporation in the course of a recent letter expressed some concern on this subject. A sentence in my immediate reply to an intervention by the right hon.

Gentleman on that occasion was therefore misleading and I apologise for the mistake. We have no evidence that the undertakings given to the Board of Trade by the Rank Organisation in 1947 and 1948 are not being fully honoured or that there has been any change in the booking arrangements; but we are making further inquiry.

Mr. Wilson: Whilst thanking the hon. and learned Gentleman for his apology for an answer given with some little heat, may I ask if he is aware that this case shows the need for making much more thorough inquiry into allegations made from this side of the House before Ministers state things categorically? Will the Minister make further inquiries among the circuits themselves to see whether they are carrying out the practices previously alleged?

Mr. Strauss: As I stated in my original answer, I am making further inquiry and that will be addressed to the Rank Organisation.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Football Pools (Duty)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of tax which he gleans from football pools; and what is the total sum on which this tax is levied.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): The amount of Pool Betting Duty collected in respect of football and similar pools in the financial year 1952–53 was £20,403,503, levied on gross stake money of £68,011,677. Separate figures for Income and Profits Tax are not available.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Chancellor aware that of this turnover of £60 million, Littlewoods, Vernons and similar pools get £8 million to £10 million? Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the excellent example of Sweden where, under public ownership, they plough back something like £8 million for the sake of physical education? Is he further aware that the Players' Union have suggested that we should plough back some of these profits for the good of the game itself?

Mr. Butler: I am naturally ready to examine any submissions which the hon. Member makes to me.

Mr. Hamilton: Would it not be a measure of justice to return a little of this money to the men who make this income for the Treasury possible—namely, professional footballers—by remitting Income Tax on their benefits?

Mr. Butler: This matter has been frequently debated, but the Government's case has proved to be almost unanswerable.

Mr. Albu: Has the Chancellor observed that in Norway profits from football pools are used to finance scientific research? Does he not think that a better way of using the profits than by the establishment of further chain stores?

Mr. Butler: While we have no earmarking of the sources of revenue in the British system, it is quite clear that a certain amount accrues to the British Treasury and is used in the most benign way possible by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Chancellor consider taking more of this money from the promoters of pools and using it for the benefit of physical education? Will he also reconsider the question of taxation of football benefits, which is a grave injustice?

Mr. Butler: The latter matter is quite separate from the original Question, and the former matter is covered by the statement that I will give the question further consideration.

Museums and Art Galleries (Grants)

Mr. Gower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total sums granted to museums in England, Wales and Scotland, respectively, for the last year for which figures are available; and what sums were granted in 1939.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The total sums voted for 1953–54 for the national museums, galleries and libraries were £1,341,000, £112,000 and £118,000 for England, Wales and Scotland, respectively. The corresponding totals for 1939–40 were £611,000, £37,000 and

£41,000. The amounts for England and Scotland do not cover the cost of buildings and equipment provided by other Departments.

European Payments Union (Dr. Erhardt's Speech)

Mr. Gaitskell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has read the recent speech of Professor Erhardt, the German Minister of Economics, attacking the European Payments Union; and whether he will disassociate Her Majesty's Government from these views.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have read the Press reports of Dr. Erhardt's speech. These matters are, of course, under current discussion in O.E.E.C. At the October Council meeting my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and I made it clear that we support the continuation of E.P.U. in very much its present form until the time comes for a transition to a wider system.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does the Chancellor realise that that statement will give much satisfaction to many people in this country and in Europe?

Wales (Separate Accounting)

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now cause to be published for Wales, as is being done for Scotland, the net receipts from various taxes, an analysis of Schedule D assessments by industry, a classification of the number of estates liable to Estate Duty, Surtax assessments, Profits Tax and Excess Profits Tax assessments and post-war credits repaid.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. Separate figures for Wales are not available and could not be prepared without an inordinate amount of labour and expense.

Mr. Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that for once a sympathetic gesture towards the people of Wales might be appreciated instead of this constant creation of resentment and anger at the completely unsympathetic attitude of the Government towards the people of that nation?

Mr. Butler: I should have thought that the people of Wales never had better consideration than under the care and attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs. In


regard to the details of accounts, this is purely a physical difficulty. Many Parliamentary Questions have been answered illustrating the difficulty. If the difficulty could be overcome, I would be only too sympathetic.

Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that in recent years many Departments have started to produce separate statistics for Wales and that, by a small extension of this process, we could rapidly reach a state of affairs in which Wales would be placed in a similar position to that of Scotland?

Mr. Butler: I have had furnished for me all the answers I have given to my hon. Friend on the subject. I would simply ask him to refer to what I have said in previous replies, which I regret still presents difficulties almost impossible to overcome.

Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the difficulty in respect of Wales which, in his mind, is insuperable, while this can be done for Scotland? Cannot Wales be treated in this respect on the same footing as Scotland? What is the difficulty which is peculiar to Wales and not to Scotland?

Mr. Butler: For one thing, the collection of taxes in Scotland is primarily under the control of the Controller of Stamps and Taxes in Scotland. Scotland also has its own Estate Duties Office. Apart from these reasons and others, it is easier to make this computation for Scotland than it would be for Wales.

Mr. Llewellyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people in Wales entirely agree with the terms of his reply?

Hon. Members: No.

Customs Duty (Iron Long)

Mr. Wellwood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that an iron lung, being imported to the City and County Hospital, Londonderry, from the City of Dublin Skin and Cancer Hospital, was held up for six weeks at the border by the United Kingdom Customs authorities, pending payment of duty by tine hospitals authority; and whether he will take steps to permit urgent medical supplies consigned to hospitals to be

admitted immediately, and for payment to be settled later.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The hospital authorities did not furnish full particulars of the goods for Customs entry and clearance when they arrived on 26th October. On inquiry of the Customs a day or so later, they were told that immediate clearance could be obtained by paying a deposit sufficient to cover any possible duty due, this deposit being adjusted later when full particulars came to hand. The authorities at no time indicated that clearance was required urgently, and advantage was not taken of the deposit facilities until 25th November, when the goods were cleared out of Customs charge.

Gas Water-heating Appliances (Tax)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to facilitate the clean food campaign in shops, he will abolish the Purchase Tax on hot-water geysers.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 26th November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) on this subject.

St. Lawrence Seaway and Vancouver Island Schemes

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are being made to allow British capital to participate in the St. Lawrence Seaway and Vancouver Island schemes.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am anxious to facilitate British participation in these schemes and will do my best to provide dollars for any suitable project.

Mr. Grimond: Has the Chancellor received any requests so far for the release of dollars for either of these schemes?

Mr. Butler: I do not think I have actually received requests but we know that there are people interested.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Chancellor aware that these schemes are closely bound up with the development of the ironfields in Labrador, that the shortest journey to them is from Glasgow, and


that it would be a great opportunity if we could get Labrador ore by having an exchange of trade, we buying their iron and they buying our machinery?

Mr. Butler: Yes, I am aware of the possibility to which the right hon. Gentleman calls attention.

Brewery, Pimlico (Rateable Value)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the rateable value of the Stag Brewery, Pimlico, is £6,438; and whether he is satisfied that this valuation bears a proper relation to the land value of the 7·9 acres occupied by the brewery and offices.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I understand that the present rateable value is £6,845. Rating law does not require a separate valuation of the site and none has been made.

Mr. Stokes: I know, but that is not an answer to the Question I asked. Is the Chancellor aware that as long as 25 years ago land in the neighbourhood was sold at £100,000 per acre, which would make this site then worth more than £800,000? Is it not quite absurd that the rateable value should be very nearly less than half of 1 per cent., taking into consideration the value of the land as well as the buildings? Surely there must be something wrong with the whole rating system.

Mr. Butler: I cannot go further than saying that the rating law does not require the separate valuation of the site. On the general question of revaluation the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that revaluation is at present not only under active consideration but is the subject of action.

Mr. Stokes: I know, but can the Chancellor say when he is going to do something about it because many Governments have evaded this issue for quite a long time?

Valuation Officers

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what staff are employed on visiting and measuring houses for valuation purposes; and how far it is their practice first of all to see if there are plans of the said houses in the offices of the local authority.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Some 1,500 staff are employed on this work. In the case of council houses and new and altered private houses they normally make use of any plans in the possession of the local authority.

Sir I. Fraser: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some small towns in my constituency it is believed that quite a number of amateurs are employed on this work? One would almost say that they are making jobs for themselves and they are not really doing the work as efficiently as it might be done.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. Friend will, I know, be aware, this is the first general revaluation since 1934. It is a very big job. If my hon. Friend has any particulars of any case in which it has not been done as well as he thinks it should be done I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. Gentleman direct the attention of these officials to the Stag Brewery in Pimlico?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the answer which has just been given to him by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, but it was wholly unsatisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — RETIRED OFFICERS' PAY

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will move to appoint a Select Committee to investigate the grievance of Service officers drawing retired pay at 9½ per cent. below the 1919 level.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to adopt this proposal.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Prime Minister aware that what distinguishes this claim from other claims is not that these retired officers are starving, but that they are being defrauded? Is he also aware that hon. Members will continue to press this matter—even though a few of them have run away from the Motion they signed last week following evasion of his responsibility?

The Prime Minister: The usual procedure of the Session will enable this and other similar matters to be debated.

Mr. Wood: Would my right hon. Friend be willing to publish a White Paper giving the numbers of officers in the various categories and also giving details of claims which are considered comparable to the restoration of this cut to these officers?

The Prime Minister: I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider the suggestion which has been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER'S ABSENCE (QUESTIONS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister which Minister will answer Questions on his behalf during his absence in Bermuda.

The Prime Minister: Questions should be put down in the usual way. I will arrange for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Privy Seal, or the Minister most closely connected with the subject matter to answer Questions on my behalf.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.S.R. (HYDROGEN BOMB)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister whether he will discuss with President Eisenhower at Bermuda questions arising out of the Soviet pos session of a hydrogen bomb and its international implications.

The Prime Minister: In the course of the conversations between the President of the United States, the French Premier and myself at Bermuda, many subjects may come up for discussion.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity of impressing on the President of the United States and the French Prime Minister that a war with H bombs and atom bombs would be a catastrophe for both the capitalist and the Communist worlds? Will he impress on them the necessity of meeting the Russians and doing something to avert this possibility?

The Prime Minister: Many of these ideas are already current in the world and on the other side of the ocean.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will now publish a table showing the total number of civil servants in each Department; the numbers who are now allowed to take part in all political activities; the number allowed to take part in certain political activities, and how this restriction applies; and the number who are not allowed to take part in any political activities at all as a result of Command Paper No. 8783.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Freeman: When will this information be available? The Command Paper was issued nearly six months ago. This information is necessary, otherwise the Command Paper is a farce.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a matter, first, of classification of the categories concerned, followed by discussions with the Departmental Whitley Council in every Department. It inevitably takes some little time.

Dr. King: Could not the Minister save himself a lot of work by remembering that civil servants are British citizens like everybody else and ought to have the full political rights of British citizens?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that I need the hon. Gentleman's reminder, nor do I think he needs the reminder that Governments of all parties in this House have realised the enormous value of a Civil Service which not only is but appears to be wholly politically impartial.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Private Street Works

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will bring forward legislation to amend the Private Street Works Act, 1892, so as to provide authority and financial grants to local authorities to make up unmade roads where such roads are in a dangerous condition.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): No, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: Will not the Parliamentary Secretary reconsider that answer? Is he not aware that the procedure under the 1892 Act is quite archaic? Is it not his policy to encourage local authorities to step in and take over these streets, which in some cases are very dangerous in developing housing estates? Will he not review this matter?

Mr. Marples: The local authorities already have power to make up streets at the expense of the frontagers, and in many cases they are so doing.

New Town Corporations (Land Acquisition)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether in order to simplify procedure, new town corporations can be authorised to pay agreed claims for loss of development value in all cases of acquisition of land, whether by agreement or by compulsion.

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is afraid that this is not yet possible in all cases. Where land is acquired compulsorily and the compensation cannot be settled by agreement, the basis of assessment remains fixed by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, until that is amended. There are also some cases where the amount payable on the claim for loss of development value cannot be determined in advance of further legislation. But for the most part public authorities, including new town corporations, are free to pay the amount of the agreed claim relating to the land in addition to the existing use value.

Mr. Braine: Is my hon. Friend aware that the latter part of his answer will be received with satisfaction by people affected by land transactions in new towns? But in view of the fact that he is limited in the power of direction to new town corporations, will my hon. Friend take special steps to publicise his answer to ensure that the new town corporations observe not only the letter but the spirit of it?

Mr. Marples: I can assure my hon. Friend that his Question and answer will be brought to the attention of the new town corporations.

The Peak District (Limestone Quarries)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he considered it necessary to agree to the continued working of three limestone quarries in the Peak district against the advice of the local planning authority and the National Parks Commission.

Mr. Marples: I am sending the hon. Member copies of letters explaining my right hon. Friend's decisions on these three quarries.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the explanations so far given have been wholly unsatisfactory? Is it not treating the authority rather improperly to disregard the very strong advice which it gave, in view of the anxiety of the planning board to make this national park a real success?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman must realise and make the distinction between new industrial development in the national parks and the continuation of the old development there. I would call his attention to the fact that in Elmdon Hill and Sparrowpit the main factors which my right hon. Friend took into consideration was that the local authority supported it and so did the men's union, for the sake of continuing full employment in the district.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Overspill Populations

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will consider advising local authorities that in acceptance of overspill population, a proportion of the local authority's own waiting list should be considered at the same time as the overspill population.

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is sure that in planning their house-building programmes local authorities in reception towns will hold a balance between the housing needs of their own people and the needs of the exporting authorities.

Mr. Remnant: Is that merely an opinion, because obviously it is irritating to a degree to those who have been on the waiting list for some years to see a mass of people coming in from outside.


and it would do much for the relationship between the new and the old if some such formula as is suggested was laid down?

Mr. Marples: If my hon. Friend has any particular area in mind where he thinks this balance is not being kept, and he will write to my right hon. Friend, we will look at what his objections are.

Private Loans (Deposits)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will consider ways and means of making house ownership possible for those who have not got the necessary capital to deposit but have adequate income to repay the loan.

Mr. Marples: Local authorities have powers under the Housing Acts to make loans to persons wishing to acquire or build houses for their own occupation and also to guarantee loans made by building societies for the same purpose. These powers are discretionary but my right hon. Friend is endeavouring, in consultation with the local authority associations and the Building Societies' Association, to make arrangements whereby these powers will be made more widely known and used.

Brigadier Clarke: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that this will encourage people to own their own houses?

Unoccupied Properties (Rates)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will consider taking steps to allow local authorities to charge rates at half rate on houses that remain unoccupied for six months or longer.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir.

Brigadier Clarke: Does my hon. Friend realise that if he brought in such a scheme he would have more houses up for sale and fewer waiting to be sold? More houses would be occupied more quickly.

Sales

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities have sold houses under the provisions of the Housing Act, 1952; and what is the number of houses sold up to the latest available date.

Mr. Marples: One hundred and three local authorities have sold a total of 638 houses up to 31st October, 1953.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the Minister consider making some regular information available to the House on this subject, and also in connection with any conditions which he may require?

Mr. Marples: I will pass that request on to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR POLLUTION

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to receive the report of the Committee on Air Pollution with regard to the establishment of smokeless zones.

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend proposes to make a statement on this tomorrow.

KENYA (VISIT OF MEMBERS)

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any statement to make with regard to a deputation to Kenya?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): As the House is aware, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition suggested some time ago that it would be helpful to a better understanding of the situation in Kenya if a party of Members from both sides of the House were to visit Kenya and see things for themselves. I put this suggestion to the Governor of Kenya who welcomed such a visit. It has now been arranged through the usual channels that the party will leave in the first week of January and will spend about two weeks in Kenya.

The Members visiting Kenya will be: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliott), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. E. Wakefield) and the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams).

KABAKA OF BUGANDA

Mr. Fenner Brockway: I indicated to you yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that I should ask your permission today to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a subject of urgent public importance, namely
The decision of Her Majesty's Government to depose the Kabaka of Buganda and to require him to leave its Territory.
I do not wish to interrupt the important debate today on the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill, or the Division which will follow it, and I understand there is agreement on both sides of the House that this Adjournment Motion, if acceptable to you, should be taken tomorrow. May I ask, if that is the case, whether you would consider it tomorrow without prejudice?

Mr. Speaker: I certainly will consider it without prejudice tomorrow.

HIGH COURT SUBPOENAS (MEMBERS)

Mr. H. Wilson: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement and to seek your guidance on a matter affecting all hon. Members of this House.
On Friday last, at 8.30 in the evening, a subpoena was served on me at my home to attend, at very short notice, namely, at 10.30 a.m. yesterday morning, at the High Court and to remain in court from day to day. I was required to give evidence in a case of which I had no knowledge and with which I had no direct or indirect connection.
I was required to produce on Monday morning minutes and documents of a committee of the Labour Party which are not in my keeping. The evidence I was to give related to discussions, the greater part of which occurred when I was not even a member of that committee. Why I was selected from the 27 members of that committee I do not know.
It was clear to me that compliance with this subpoena would be inconsistent with my duties as a Member of this House. Owing to the very short notice given, it was not possible for me to raise the matter in the House. However, Mr. Speaker, you intervened in the matter, for which I should like to express my

thanks. Following the letter which you sent to the learned judge who was trying the case the subpoena was set aside, but I do not feel that the matter can rest there.
I should be most willing, as I am sure all hon. Members would, to give evidence in any case where I could help to assist the administration of justice, and no doubt in such a case arrangements would be made to permit of evidence being given at such a time as would not involve interference with the fulfilment of an hon. Member's duties to this House. But at the same time hon. Members are, I submit, entitled to protection against the issue of frivolous and even malicious subpoenas and from the consequence of sensational misrepresentations in certain organs of the national Press.
I am advised that there is widespread ignorance in the legal profession about the privilege of hon. Members in the matter of subpoenas, and that a declaratory statement by yourself would help to make the position clear.

Mr. Speaker: I would inform the House that I only heard about this for the first time yesterday morning. I immediately sent a letter to the learned judge in charge of the case asking if he would intervene to postpone or set aside the subpoena. This would, I said, obviate the necessity for this House to take the formal and more cumbrous step of refusing leave of absence from the House for the right hon. Gentleman to attend the court that day, in view of the fact that Members of both Houses are, by law and custom of Parliament, exempted from attendance as witnesses during the Sessions of Parliament. I express no opinion whatsoever about the case which is being tried and about which, indeed, I know nothing. I only acted as I did to protect the right hon. Gentleman and to preserve the privileges of this House.

Mr. McGovern: In connection with the Ruling which you have given, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that I asked a similar question in 1934, when I was summoned to a Glasgow court because I had been guilty of some disorderly conduct by holding a public meeting without permission? Mr. Speaker FitzRoy decided then that I was bound to attend the court.

Mr. Speaker: I do not recollect the incident, though I was in the House at the time. But there is a distinction to be drawn. All I have ruled on today is the issue of a subpoena to an hon. Member to attend as a witness.

TRANSATLANTIC TELEPHONE (AGREEMENT)

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about our transatlantic telephone communications. The House will be glad to know that my noble Friend has just signed an agreement with the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation and the Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company of Canada for the provision of the first transatlantic telephone cable. The agreement will be laid before Parliament and will be subject to approval in this House.
The new cable will transform telecommunications between this country and the North American Continent. In place of the existing 12 radio telephone circuits to the U.S. and two to Canada, dependent as they are on the vagaries of atmospheric conditions, we shall have high grade and reliable circuits, about 29 to the U.S. and six to Canada, as well as a number of telegraph circuits to Canada. Further technical development may well increase the number of circuits. Of very great importance also, the new cable will help us to give much better telephone and telegraph services to Australia and New Zealand via Vancouver. This will mean far less interference than with our present radio connections.
The cost will be about £12½ million, and the job will take about three years to complete. The submarine cable will be laid by H.M.T.S. "Monarch," the largest cable ship in the world, which is being specially adapted for this purpose.
I am sure the House will wish me to pay a very special tribute to the engineers on both sides of the Atlantic. Thanks to their persistence and skill something which has been a vision for a quarter of a century has become a reality, and has made possible this tremendous advance in the history of telecommunications.

Mr. Hobson: While congratulating the hon. Gentleman and all those associated with this scheme which was signed but a few minutes ago, may I ask him to inform us whether the submarine cable is to be fitted with submarine repeaters, and, if so, who is to manufacture them? Can he also give an assurance to the House that there will be no delay in bringing forward the affirmative Resolution?

Mr. Gammans: There will be submarine repeaters, about 110 in all, between this country and Newfoundland. We shall use the American system, because they have more experience than we have of deep-sea repeaters. But between Newfoundland and Canada we are to use the British system. There will be no delay in bringing forward the affirmative Resolution, but I cannot tell the hon. Member exactly when it will be laid before the House for discussion.

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mrs. Braddock: Mr. Speaker, may I have your guidance on a matter which I consider to be of urgent public importance? I saw you with reference to a Private Notice Question on a matter which is causing great concern to many people in my constituency and in my city. It concerns the fact that a youth was handcuffed and chained to the roof of a van when being removed from a police station to the detention camp at Formby. You told me when I saw you that it was impossible to raise that matter as one of urgent public importance or interest, and I should like to know on what basis that Ruling was given and why it was impossible to raise a matter of that sort which is of great importance to many parents whose boys are called up for National Service. Also, I should like to know the reason why I was not permitted to visit the boy when I made a perfectly reasonable request to the major at the detention camp.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady submitted a Question to me to be asked by Private Notice of the Secretary of State for War which concerned an individual case. In the matter of Questions by Private Notice I have a duty to the House to see that time is not taken up by Questions which are not of sufficient general importance


to be asked by Private Notice. It is true that every private case is important to the individuals concerned, and I know that this matter is of great importance to the hon. Lady. Every private case is of importance because probably the liberties of the State are the sum of our liberties as individuals.
At the same time, in choosing Questions for Private Notice it is the custom, except in very exceptional circumstances, not to deal with individual cases but to offer to the hon. Member concerned the ordinary resources of Parliament. When I considered this matter—and realised too this morning that the soldier in respect of whom the Question was asked has escaped from the guardroom—I could not bring myself to the view that an inquiry into these past circumstances was of sufficient urgency to justify my acceding to the hon. Lady's request.

Mr. Wigg: There is one aspect of this problem which concerns every hon. Member. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) asked permission of the War Office, or a representative of the War Office—the soldier's commanding officer—to interview her constituent in the guardroom. The Secretary of State for War, or an officer acting on his behalf, refused permission. I should have thought that was a most serious matter and that any hon. Member who wanted to see a constituent to arrange for that soldier's defence had a right to

do so. I should have thought that the fact that that right was denied the hon. Member was a matter of urgent public importance.

Mr. Speaker: On that issue, I understood from the hon. Lady that it was the officer on the spot who refused permission—a senior officer. It has been frequently ruled that in the matter of seeing prisoners, whether of a civil or military power, an hon. Member is in no better position than a member of the public. That has been settled by a long series of decisions, and that being an old matter I could not regard it as of sufficient importance to justify a Private Notice Question.

Mr. Keenan: Is not the position becoming rather difficult because cases of this kind are arising so frequently, especially in the Army? In order to get redress hon. Members have to try to adopt the measures adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). What other form of redress have we when the administration of some officers in the Army is so callous that National Service men and their parents are very upset?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members have all the other resources of Parliamentary procedure open to them in addition to Private Notice Questions. I have experience of these resources being frequently used.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING REPAIRS AND RENTS BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [30th November], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

3.45 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Sir David Eccles): Yesterday the House listened to many valuable speeches from hon. Members on both sides. This is the kind of debate which shows the very wide experience that hon. Gentlemen have of the conditions in which the people of this country live. On this side of the House we noticed that hon. Members opposite could not make up their minds whether the Bill is a mouldy turnip or a piece of cake for the landlords. We liked that divergency of opinion because it shows my right hon. Friend's skill and fairness in drafting the Measure.
Everybody agreed on one consideration and that was the staggering size of the problems with which we have to deal. There are 7 million rent-restricted houses, and in a great many of our cities the decayed fungus of the slums which must be dealt with. The big issues before the House are who should do this job; where is the money to come from; and are there enough builders and materials to make a good start? The Government's answer to the question about who should do the job is, "Everybody capable of lending a hand." We have no likes or dislikes in the rehousing of the people.
One has only to look at my right hon. Friend to see that he is not exclusive, that he is not a class-monger. He is the very reverse of a snob. In his housing drive he has demonstrated to the whole country the advantage of pulling in all agencies, public and private. Had he snubbed private enterprise, had he relied exclusively upon local authorities, I do not think there is anyone who would say that the present rate of new house building would have reached 300,000 a year.
He intends to follow the same principle in this next stage of his housing policy. He will mobilise local authorities, housing associations, development corporations, building societies, industry both private and nationalised—and industry is

doing a great deal in the housing field—private owners and big and small builders. The more agencies and persons that are brought in the less money the taxpayer and the ratepayer will have to find.
As it is a fact that private persons use their money better than the State, we are convinced that the work under our proposals will be done more quickly and more efficiently. The Opposition—and we are very glad about this—have made quite clear what is their alternative policy. They are the exclusive people and they are the snobs, because they want to hand over the whole business to the local authorities, using that one agency only. All the rent-restricted houses, and there are 6 million or 7 million of them should go to the local authorities, according to the Opposition.
Some hon. Gentlemen went even further. They said that they wanted the local authorities to take over shops, garages and industrial premises if they were in the areas where there were a large number of rent-restricted properties. They wanted to do that to make a profit. I must say that it gives us pleasure to hear how lovingly hon. Gentlemen opposite use the word "profit" when it suits them. If they are to make a profit out of this property they must either buy it below the fair price—that is to say, they will have to introduce a measure of confiscation—or they will have to put the rents up afterwards, and we should like to know which. This is the official policy of the Labour Party, and it was attacked last night in a remarkable speech by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade).

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us, because this is of very great importance, whether he is arguing that the local authorities should touch only things upon which there is a loss to public funds, and that if there are other elements which would ease the burden on public funds, they are to be excluded and to be held by private interests?

Sir D. Eccles: I was merely saying it was interesting to notice that, as part of their housing policy, the right hon. Gentleman's party desire to take over all these shops, business premises and garages.

Mr. Morrison: Answer the question.

Sir D. Eccles: That is the Labour Party's policy. They think it right, we think it wrong.

Mr. Morrison: Answer the question.

Mr. William Hamilton: Do not dodge it.

Sir D. Eccles: The question was whether I think it right or wrong. I think that it is wrong.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, in a speech which was a remarkable attack upon the policy of the Opposition, showed from his experience as a poor man's lawyer that this exclusive reliance upon the local authorities would bring less comfort and help to the people whom he knows so well than the more practical measures contained in the Bill. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply for the Opposition—I hope that it is the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) who will wind up—

Mr. Morrison: Mr. Morrison indicated assent.

Sir D. Eccles: —some questions about his party's policy.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is the policy of the Labour Party to take over, not only houses, but shops, garages, factories and the like. If that is wrong, how is it that his right hon. Friend is greatly in love with the huge Birmingham scheme that is doing that with 981 acres in the centre of the city, a scheme that is working very well?

Sir D. Eccles: There might be an occasional case.

Mr. Shurmer: It is the greatest scheme in the country.

Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member always wants to have the same for the whole country or not at all. We say that to make it part of the policy for local government to take over all these business premises is wrong.

Mr. Shurmer: Is Birmingham wrong then? Say "Yes" or "No."

Sir D. Eccles: What I am saying is how fast—[Interruption.] I will answer the hon. Member. It all depends, I dare

say, on how much is paid. If these 6 or 7 million houses cost £500 a house—some would cost more and some less—that would mean £3,000 million. Where is all that money to come from, and who would pay the interest? Over and above the money for all these houses, hon. Members opposite would want another thousand or two million pounds for the other property that is round about. It is simply not practicable. Of course, they may say that they would take over these houses piecemeal, and from what they said yesterday it is clear that they would like to take the best ones first. That is clear also from the interjections we have had today. Then, what happens to the worst houses? Under the Bill, we provide that the worst houses should be taken over by the local authorities.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Who made the slums?

Sir D. Eccles: The local authorities are the trustees of the people; they ought to be proud to do it. We are also helping the landlords of the houses that are not taken over immediately to repair their houses. Under the Socialist proposals, no help would be given to the owners of the houses not immediately taken over. They would simply wait until the local authorities could get round to nationalising them, and in the meantime, of course, those houses would fall further and further into disrepair.
I must also ask the right hon. Gentleman where the money would come from to repair the 7 million houses which are to be taken over by the local authorities. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer pay out a large sum from taxation as subsidies, would the local authorities put up their rates, or, what is more likely, would they raise their rents? We want to know what is the financial scheme behind this wholesale nationalisation of property that is now the policy of the Opposition. My right hon. Friend is quite confident that our way is better and that by calling in everybody to help—private and public agencies—we shall get the work done quicker and more economically.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: If it is right that the local authority should take over the dilapidated houses, why should it not be equally right, and with even greater force, that the local authority should take over the valuable houses?

Sir D. Eccles: There is a simple answer to that. We are faced with a lot of houses that need repair for the sake of the people who live in them. Therefore, we must look round and see who will do which part of the business. If we can get landlords, by giving them some justice in rent, to look after 4 or 5 million of those houses, we are doing the right thing by the people; but since the other houses require sums to be spent on them beyond the amount by which it is reasonable to raise the rents, we must look for some other agency. Being the Conservative Party, we are not the least afraid to bring in the State when it is the State that should do the duty.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: If it is right that the State or the local authority should take over these houses because they have to be repaired or reconstructed, why should it not be right for the local authorities to take the good houses to offset the burden?

Sir D. Eceles: The answer is that each of us does only so much at a time. It is far better to use all our resources to help the people than it is to follow out some political prejudice.
I turn now to the third question: the problem of the building resources that are needed to make a good start on the Bill. Supposing that to make any impression on slum property a decision were forced on the Government to cut back the building of factories, defence works or schools, or to give up building a satisfactory number of new houses, the usefulness of this Measure might then well be challenged.
In the last two years the building industry has acquired a forward momentum which, if it is continued, we are sure will make possible good progress on repairs, conversion and slums. That expansion has been achieved because my right hon. Friend and I have discarded Socialist methods of planning. We have found by experience that the builders and makers of building matrials expand their output most when they are not working to a Whitehall target.
We have found that the way to increase output is to allow some part of the building programme to increase as fast as it can. When that happens it is possible for everyone in the industry to have confidence that he will not work himself out of a job. There is no better incentive

to a brick maker, for instance, than to tell him that all the bricks he makes he can sell. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the last 30 years?"] That was not so under the Labour Government. They fixed a target a year ahead for traditional houses, and therefore the brickyards took good care not to produce more bricks than were needed for that target. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]
There is no better incentive for a builder, for his foreman or for his operatives, than continuity of work. That kind of incentive exists only when work is waiting to be done for which the preparations, such as permits, drawings, and bills of quantities, are in an advanced stage, so that the work can be started as and when the industry is capable of doing it. As the House will have noticed, the proposals of my right hon. Friend are not tied to any time-table of work, but are designed to furnish a waiting list of prepared work which will enable us to maintain the expansion which has been a feature of the last two years.
The House would like to have a more detailed account of the building resources which are available. Taking repairs and new construction together, the total output of building and civil engineering work is advancing at a rising rate. It is the direction and pace of that advance which is so important for this Bill. At constant prices, the annual figures are £1,400 million in 1951, £1,440 million in 1952. and a conservative estimate for 1953 is £1,560 million. Last year, there were small additions of about 15,000 to the labour force and a greater increase in productivity, as can be seen by the very large advance in the use of building materials.
I should like to say a few words about building materials. Ever since the war, the supply of materials has limited output and productivity per man in building. I must say that our predecessors did not manage this job very well. In 1947, and again early in 1951, the amount of work started outran the supply of materials with very damaging consequences, and the whole programme twice had to be put into reverse. Since 1951, whether by good luck or by good management the House can decide, the amount of work started and the supply of materials have been roughly in balance. Here and there,


we have run into local shortages of bricks and cement, but never serious enough to put a brake on the rising expansion and never serious enough to cause us to hold up our step-by-step increase of freedom in building.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions before he leaves the matter of building labour? The first is this. Is it not a fact that, since 1948, the total number of men available for building in the country has been almost exactly constant, and has never been more than 1 per cent. by way of variation? The second is this. The only figure in the building trade which has gone up in the last two years is the unemployment figure, which has risen considerably. Is not that the case?

Sir D. Eccles: The fact that the building force has remained the same, while it has been able to use a steadily rising supply of materials since we have been in office, only shows that productivity goes up when we have more freedom. On the second point made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) regarding unemployment, the published figures show that it is now very low. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] I cannot give the exact figure, but it is extremely low; less than 1 per cent.
While output has been growing in size, there have been big changes in its composition, and these changes have a direct bearing on the prospects of carrying out this Bill. For instance, work on repairs has rapidly diminished. It is not yet true, as it is in the United States, that the building industry here is organised like the boot and shoe industry; that is to say, with one set of firms making the new articles and another set repairing them. As more machines are introduced, however, and as prefabrication is more generally adopted, we can look forward to the same division of labour becoming more common in this country.
Today, there is still an interchange of resources between repairs and new building, and that fact was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale(Mr. Bevan), who reminded us of the compelling need to make good war damage when the bombing ceased. I regret to say that much of that repair work—and I have studied how it was

done—was done very expensively and inefficiently, but the bulk of it was completed by 1951. [HON. MEMBERS: "Private enterprise."] There were many reasons, but the fact is that, organised by Ministries, it was not well done.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Cost-plus.

Sir D. Eccles: It therefore became inevitable that, at the time we took office, a sharp decline in repairs should set in. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale spoke yesterday as though we deliberately encouraged the decline in repairs, but, of course, the reverse is true. We took considerable steps to check the movement away from repairs. Far from putting any pressure on builders and their men to leave repairs and go on the housing sites, we twice raised the free limit for work on houses, first from £100 to £200 and then from £200 to £500, and, as I announced yesterday, next year's limit will be £1,000 for houses and £25,000 for industry and agriculture.
I must mention a minor but useful result of these changes. It is that all painting jobs, except the very largest in industry—and a contract for £25,000 for painting is rare—will now be completely free from control, and this will help the painting trade, which often suffers from lack of work, especially in the winter. I am not sure that it is generally realised how much we have done to stimulate repairs. When the free limits were raised, on both occasions, we did not reduce the quarterly ceilings allowed to local authorities for granting licences above the free limit. Clearly, as the applicants were greatly reduced by the extension of the area of freedom, the local authorities have been able to be much more generous with licences for other jobs.
These measures were taken while the war-damage work was diminishing, and. as the right hon. Gentleman opposite said yesterday, many men who had been doing this work transferred to new construction, but—and this is important for this Bill—the jobbing builder, the small man who likes to be his own master, has seldom transferred, and in some cities has been short of work for over a year or so now. He is going to get more work under this Bill, and he will be able to do it without affecting the rate of new construction.
We had work ready for those who had been employed on war-damage repairs and wished to change their jobs. New houses, as everyone knows, are foremost in our plan. I should like to say to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that, whatever had been the situation in the building industry when we came into office, we should have launched our campaign for more houses, because my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that a good house is an essential background to a good family life, and that it is their duty to make a greater effort than their predecessors to meet this need.
As it happened—and there is a stroke of fortune in every campaign—the Socialist Administration left behind them some critical shortages which squeeezed the building programme in one direction while helping it to expand in another. We inherited a steel famine and we were particularly embarrassed by a shortage of steel rod, a component of reinforced concrete. Supplies of this vital material were running at about 100,000 tons a year below current requirements when we came into office. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply put that right within a year; but, of course, in the meantime we had to hold back buildings using steel. On the other hand, houses call for little or no steel, and so it came about that the shortage which we inherited, and which had nothing to do with our policy, made it possible to carry out that policy a little more quickly than would otherwise have been the case. The slowing down in factory building is the result of this situation which we—

Mr. A. Hargreaves: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point of the balance between new houses and repairs, will he deal with the allied point of the balance in the respective labour forces? In Carlisle, nine new housing contracts are held up for lack of cable jointers, because this labour drained away for other jobs. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with this point?

Sir D. Eccles: I agree that here and there are difficulties of that kind. I am going to refer in detail later to the fact that the housing programme has expanded even faster than our greatest hopes, and that has produced one or two small shortages, but they will be overcome, as I hope to show shortly. I was talking about the slowing down in

other forms of building, and taking particularly factory building in order to show that the interruption is nothing like as severe as hon. Gentlemen opposite have been saying in the country.
I must rebut the charge that houses are even now being built at the expense of factories or that, as the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale put it in a good phrase, that my right hon. Friend looks as though he is going forward but only because everybody else is falling back. That was a good phrase, I thought, but it is not true. If it were true there would be a strong argument against slum clearance, because that operation uses much the same materials as industrial building. As an example of what is being said, I take some remarks which the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) was reported as making a week or two ago. The report which I saw said that in the last year of the Labour Government £100 million had been spent—I hope the House will note those words—on building factories. He added:
The Tories reduced this to £25 million.
I believe that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is rather loose and wild in dealing with statistics, but I had thought that an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer would be rather more careful.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Mr. Hugh Gaitskell (Leeds, South) rose—

Sir D. Eccles: Let me first complete this point, and I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a minute. On this occasion, the right hon. Gentleman was not even comparing like with like. The figures are to be found—I see that he has the Monthly Digest in his hand—in Table 88. He took the whole of 1951 and compared it with the first seven months of 1953. That is the worst sin an economist can commit.
Probably even worse than that, the right hon. Gentleman was not quoting the figures of money spent but of the value of contracts completed in the period. That is notoriously unreliable because the figures for any particular period can be abnormal when there is not a single big job completed in that period. For example, a job like the steel works at Margam runs into £20 million or £30 million and the whole of that is shown in one quarter, which makes the figures an unreliable guide.
I should like to make a fair comparison between our two Governments, between the last four quarters of the Labour Government, September to September, 1950–51, and the last four quarters for which we have figures, September to September, 1952–53. I will use not the figures of contracts completed but the actual money spent on industrial building. It works out as follows: £109 million for the Socialists; £112 million for the Conservatives; so there is proof that we have now completely recovered from the steel shortage. As the value of the industrial licences which we have given this year is 50 per cent. greater than last year, next year's figures will clearly show a rate of money spent on industrial building far higher than anything under the Socialists.

Mr. Gaitskell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for now giving way. He was good enough to give me notice that he would be referring to some speech of mine. I gathered that he was reading from some report, but he did not mention the newspaper. I suspect that it was a report in the "Manchester Guardian." It was not reported in "The Times." If the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the "Manchester Guardian" on the following day, he would have seen a letter from me correcting what was quite obviously a completely misleading report of what I said.
I wrote to the "Manchester Guardian" and made plain that what I had said was that the value of completions in 1951 was £97 million, in 1952 it was £70 million, and in the first eight, not seven, months of 1953 it was £25 million. Those figures are taken from the Digest of Statistics and cannot be denied by the right hon. Gentleman. They give a very good picture of the way in which industrial building has been allowed to run down under the present Government. Nor can it be denied—this was also in my speech, so I shall make reference to it—that the present value of building, new factory building, under construction is still about £30 million below the peak under the Labour Government.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Sir D. Eccles: I am sorry, but I did not see the correction.

Mr. Hamilton: Who is distorting now?

Sir D. Eccles: The distortion remains, because this figure of completions is not a reliable guide. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] What matters is the amount of money spent. I have tried to put the matter frankly to the House to show that there was a trough due entirely to the mismanagement of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They know perfectly well that when we got into office we had to put a ban on new starts of steel-using building. We had not got enough steel to keep in progress the building which they had started.
The key to my right hon. Friend's success, as I think he has often said, has been the expansion in the output of home-produced building material. Behind all the good work of the local authorities and the builders lies a magnificent effort in the brickyards, and in the foundries making cast-iron goods. I wish the ex-Minister of Supply were here. He left us a terrible shortage of cast-iron goods. We had to take the most drastic steps to get enough to keep the housing programme going that we found when we got into office.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Could the Minister expand what he has said, and say what those steps were? The only result, so far as I can make out, has been a good deal of unemployment in our district.

Sir D. Eccles: The castings industry, because I suppose of the nationalised steel industry—I do not know—was not getting the raw materials it needed. The shortage of pipes, rain-water goods and that kind of thing was very severe. We had to take steps to see that it was bettered. In the yards producing roofing tiles there had to be a very great expansion. They have done wonderfully to be able to roof 300,000 houses a year. Then there are the cement works. Cement is the bread and butter of the industry. I am not going to weary the House with details of the expansion in materials. The important fact before us this afternoon is that this rise in output is gaining in pace, which enables us to count confidentially on still greater supplies in the months and years ahead.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale, comparing his own achievements with those of my right hon. Friend, claimed that any fool could build 300,000 houses. We understood by that


that he meant that any of his Ministerial colleagues could, when they were in office, have chosen between war-damage repairs and 300,000 houses. I think that is what he meant.

Mr. Bevan: No.

Sir D. Eccles: What did the right hon. Gentleman mean?

Mr. Bevan: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to quote me correctly, he should remember that I said that if there is a limited amount of resources at one's disposal and one wants to build 300,000 houses, then a decision has to be taken as to what is going to be done without. What actually was done, as I proved in the figures I gave yesterday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly; they were confirmed today by the right hon. Gentleman, who admitted that his right hon. Friend got the benefit of new house building and of large quantities of labour released from war-damage repairs.

Sir D. Eccles: But the whole point is that in the right hon. Gentleman's day there were not enough materials and the men on repair work use far less materials than the men on new construction. Everybody knows they do, but the materials for new house building were not there, and therefore they had no choice in the right hon. Gentleman's time between repairs and building 300,000 houses. The real answer was given by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday when he said:
The building industry…is a headache to anyone who has anything to do with it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 820.]
He was speaking from his own experience, but my right hon. Friend and I have found that the building industry has responded very well to better management.
Although the industry is more or less fully employed today, there are two reasons why we say it can take on this extra work. First of all, there is the increase of materials and we feel confident that these materials will be used next year and the year after. Techniques are improving. We must go forward with the new traditional methods. It is most important that the men should not only lay 400 to 500 million more bricks next year than this year, which is what was done this year compared with last

year, but it is important that the new traditional techniques should also go forward.

Mr. Mitchison: Mr. Mitchison rose—

Sir D. Eccles: I should like to get through this part of my speech if I may.
Organisation of the site is most important, and that is steadily improving. More machines are coming into use and prefabrication is becoming more generally adopted. It is very interesting that, although there is more work in the building industry than a year ago, competitive tendering is keener and also that the price of building materials is coming down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, and anyone can see that in the figures.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: Give us examples.

Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman can quite easily get the book and look them up. Building output will be about 8 per cent. above last year, and I see no reason why that should not be repeated next year.
There is another reason for hope, and that is that not very much work can be undertaken until the Bill is law. After that plans will have to be prepared and passed, and in the interval of nine months or more some of the civil engineering and building programmes will be beginning to tail off. For instance, that part of the defence programme which eats up so much cement will begin to level off next year. Nor will we have to provide the additional cement for the emergency coastal defences, which will be more or less completed.
Thirdly, new housing is now running at about 330,000 houses a year. My right hon. Friend, wizard and magician though he is, could not exactly forecast how the 1,500 housing authorities in England and Wales would respond to his business-like administration, so very different from what they had known. All honour to them. Together with the private builders they have reached and shot past the rate of 300,000 a year.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: They are not completed yet.

Sir D. Eccles: Hon. Members will know from the latest housing return that the number of—

Mr. Sparks: But they are not completed.

Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. Hon. Members will know that the number of council houses approved but not started is coming down. That is deliberate policy. My right hon. Friend is taking steps to stabilise the rate of completions at round about 300,000 a year. That is 50 per cent. above the best that our predecessors did—not a bad record.

Mr. Lindgren: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the difference between three-bedroom houses and two-bedroom houses? No less than 60 per cent. of the present houses under construction are two-bedroom houses.

Sir D. Eccles: My right hon. Friend has just told me that 50 per cent. more bedrooms are completed every month. These are the reasons we expect—

Mr. Lindgren: The right hon. Gentleman does not live in a two-bedroom house, nor do any of his pals.

Sir D. Eccles: I have given the House reasons why we can expect an increase in the output of building and a year hence some levelling off in programmes as we know them today. Here is the margin of resources for which we are looking. I have had an estimate made of this uncommitted capacity. It is of the order of £150 million to £200 million. How are we going to use this additional capacity in the building industry?
The Government consider that industrial building should have the first call, and anyone in the private sector who wishes to build or extend a factory now will be encouraged to do so without let or hindrance. Building for the nationalised industries, which is very important, and for departmental programmes, such as schools, also very important, will be controlled by the money available, and will be maintained at a high level. Then we are licensing a number of large buildings in London and the other blitzed cities. In areas where there are sufficient resources I hope also to license rather more churches, shops, clubs and places of entertainment.
Finally, we come to the proposals under the Bill. As I have said, there is at present a fairly strong movement away from repairs. At the worst the increase

in rent provided for in the Bill and the higher free limits announced yesterday should arrest this decline. They may do more. In fact, I myself am confident it will be so, because twice the statutory deduction is a powerful incentive to a great many landlords. I have got more faith than hon. Gentlemen opposite in the landlords' sense of duty to their property.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Why did they not do it in the inter-war years?

Sir D. Eccles: It is remarkable the number of landlords who keep their property in good repair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Hon. Gentlemen can come with me and I will show them

Mr. Lindgren: Come with us.

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in and around London there are thousands of homes in a dilapidated condition because during the interwar years, when there were thousands of building workers unemployed, with materials in abundance and very cheap, these very landlords refused to have the necessary repairs done and as a result these properties are today deteriorating into slums?

Sir D. Eccles: There are, of course, some bad landlords, just as there are some bad Socialists.
The Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the proposals to encourage modernisation and conversion. This is a commonsense and desirable operation and we must do everything we can to make it a success. But, looking at it from the point of view of the building industry, I do not think that a large volume of conversions will come on to the industry in the immediate future. This is obviously a programme which will be difficult to expand, though we intend to do it.
I do not think, therefore, that we need be apprehensive of the capacity of the building industry next year to deal with the extra repairs and conversions. Supposing that, by the middle of next year, this extra work, over and above the present rate, were running at about £3 million a month, I should say that we were doing very well. Of course, in 1955 we hope there will be a different


story—one of great expansion, and we shall be ready for it.
As Minister of Works, I can see that slum clearance comes closest to my Department, because it will make the greatest impact on the industry. It is an almost limitless programme. One has only to think of the cities mentioned yesterday—Liverpool, Leeds, Stoke-on-Trent, London, and above all Glasgow. This work is going to cost hundreds of millions of pounds, and for that reason it can be so managed that it will underpin employment in the building industry for years to come.

Miss Alice Bacon: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what there is in this Bill to help slum clearance rather than to help to patch up the slums?

Sir D. Eccles: Well, there are financial provisions in Clause 1. [Interruption.] They are going to be brought into work again, and we are going to get the local authorities' plans. When we have the plans they will be put into action as soon as they can be, with the help of the Chancellor. An important point in slum clearance is the state of readiness of local authority plans, because everyone is familiar with the fact that one cannot turn on the tap of public works in a hurry. The detailed plans must first be prepared, and what we need here is a healthy queue of detailed plans if we are to manage slum clearance to the best advantage.
Supposing plans come forward, how fast shall we be able to put them into execution? The answer, so far as the physical resources are concerned, rests with the building industry. The component elements of that great industry, the architects, engineers, surveyors, contractors and operatives, will see in the Bill an immense volume of work stretching out into the distant future. Here for them is the promise of full employment for years to come.
How are they going to respond to that promise? They may sit back and say, "With all this work to do there is no need for us to bother much about our costs, or about new methods, or about getting rid of out-of-date restrictive practices. We are well enough as we are." If that kind of complacency infected the

industry, they would have succumbed to the occupational disease of full employment. On the other hand, they may say, "This is the kind of security which we never had before the war. We accept this challenge and this opportunity to look to our organisation, to introduce new techniques, and to hold nothing back in our effort to rehouse our fellow-citizens." The success of the Bill depends very largely on which of the two answers the building industry gives.
That brings me to my last point, and I apologise for keeping the House so long.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Can the Minister give an assurance now, on behalf of all the Government Departments, that, as local authorities put plans before the various Ministries, nothing will be allowed to stand in the way of the local authorities proceeding with slum clearance as fast as the local conditions allow?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, as fast as the local conditions allow. That is exactly the way in which we intend to manage the business of slum clearance. That is why there is no time-table. We wish to feed in the work at all times when there are resources available. If there were a very big slum clearance programme in Stoke-on-Trent, it would affect the area around Stoke-on-Trent. Therefore, not only the city but the surrounding area has to be considered.
I do not deny that this Bill makes a very great demand on the building industry. In the last two years the builders and operatives have done far better than anyone expected, but, of course, there are still some old-fashioned employers and many memories of unemployment; but our hope is that, with patience and with proposals for continuing work such as are contained in the Bill, and as time goes on with proof that men are not working themselves out of a job if they work fast, the builder and the building operative will achieve an increased output that will greatly astonish the pessimistic planners on the other side of the House.
It is a great pity that the Bill is not going to have a Second Reading without a Division, for the particular reason that, if all parties passed this Bill, it would strengthen the industry's assurance that this great volume of work is going to


continue uninterrupted by any political changes there may be. I hope that, when the Opposition vote against the Bill, they will reflect that they are voting not only against ways and means of raising rents, but also against a practical method of improving the housing of the people as fast as our resources allow, and against a Measure which holds out the promise of employment for a very large number of our fellow citizens. When the time comes, the Government will be very ready to take their case to the country.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I think the whole House is interested in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious—in his last or second last point—that the building industry should look to new methods and should seek to abandon traditional practices. Why, therefore, has the Building Research Station, which plays an important part in this sort of work, had its staff so ruthlessly cut? Why, too, has the Minister of Works, if he is so keen on seeking new methods in order that the building industry should be more efficient, taken one look at his own payment-by-results incentive bonus section in the Ministry and sacked the lot? Those are the questions which immediately arise when a Minister gets up and says, "We must look for new methods," and does not say what he has done about it.
The Minister claimed that there would be no difficulty with regard to materials. As to bricks, he under-estimated and said there are only local shortages, but the facts are, of course, that the stocks of bricks are very low indeed, and very low as compared with last year.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Three days instead of five.

Mr. de Freitas: They are about half compared with last year.

Sir D. Eccles: There have never been any stocks of bricks. There used to be five or six days' consumption; there are now two or three days'. The fact is that bricks are like buns. They are baked and delivered straight to the consumer. There never have been any stocks.

Mr. de Freitas: When the Minister says bricks are like buns I realise why when

I read the "Builder" this week, this curious phrase was used:
The demand for bricks in the North-West is still as big as the makers can deal with, and, in some cases, the contractors are building…hand-to-mouth….
It seems to me to be a fact which should be taken into consideration and not be brushed aside lightly that stocks are bad and that there is definitely this complaint in the publications devoted to the industry.
The Minister did not challenge the figures given by my right hon. Friend yesterday about manpower and the allocation between new houses and repairs. I regard that as an important admission. Repairs need skilled men, as the Minister knows well. The Parliamentary Secretary told us to look at what had been done in Birmingham and to visit Birmingham. It is exactly the shortage of skilled men—not the ordinary workers—which has affected the Birmingham scheme, and if we are to look to Birmingham as a guide we must find the skilled men to do the increased repairs in this national scheme.
The Minister used a strange argument when he upbraided us for talking about Birmingham taking over shops and good as well as bad property, for the Parliamentary Secretary stressed that the scheme was based on that. If we look at Birmingham, we see that that is exactly what Birmingham did. We heard a great deal about Birmingham's experience yesterday, and it was most interesting, for one of the facts which came out was that Birmingham took over good as well as bad properties.
We all welcomed the announcement yesterday that the limit in respect of agricultural and factory buildings was to be raised to £25,000. In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's alarming statement on our economic position, we welcome that the Government have at last realised that our economic future depends on new factories, new industries and new agricultural plant.
At Margate the Minister spoke in a debate in which it was stated that the wicked Socialists were saying that the Government had slowed down school and factory building in order to build small new houses. How did the Minister answer that? I was interested in the report of his speech in the "Manchester Guardian." If he could say, "It is not true that we have slowed down the building of fac-


tories," he would have scored a great debating point. According to the "Manchester Guardian" he said:
In 1953 new factories to the value of £16 million a month were started….

Sir D. Eccles: Not "started."

Mr. de Freitas: This is a quotation from the "Manchester Guardian." Did the Minister write to the "Manchester Guardian" the next day to point out the error? He was quoted as saying that this was 10 per cent, better than what was done in the best days of the Socialist Government. He got an ovation for that. Where did he get his figures? Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, if I am on a false point I will withdraw. The right hon. Gentleman did not do that with my right hon. Friend, and yet my right hon. Friend had written to the "Manchester Guardian" the next day and drawn attention to the error in his case. However, in this case the figures have been perpetuated and have been trotted out up and down the country as the conclusive answer from the Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he did not say "started" and that the "Manchester Guardian" misreported him, I will withdraw.

Sir D. Eccles: I said "licensed." I did not do anything about it because the start of any building is really the licence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course it is. The start of a factory is a licence. The fact is that we have licensed £16 million a month this year, which is 50 per cent. more than last year. Therefore, we shall produce far more factories than hon. Gentlemen opposite did.

Mr. de Freitas: A lot of the discussion is on the difference between licensing and starting dates. Yesterday a big point was made by the Minister on the starting dates. No wonder the officials of his Department have been reluctant to give any information to back up the Margate statement. However, we all welcome the £25,000 limit, which is a most important development and shows the conversion of the Government to sound economics when it comes to matters of industrial and factory buildings.
This is the middle of a Second Reading debate on the most complicated Bill of

the Session, but one would hardly realise that, because after a debate yesterday which went on until 11 o'clock we have not had a Minister dealing with the constructive criticism which has been made. A most interesting speech was made on behalf of the Government, but the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that it was in no way related to the debate which we had yesterday. In fact, the speech hardly touched a twentieth of the subjects discussed yesterday. In particular, no reference was made to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) who preceded the Minister in the debate and spoke from long and distinguished experience in municipal housing.
The main theme of opposition to the Bill has been that, if the Government are right in saying that the Bill will be worked, then it will work unfairly towards two groups: first, towards the occupants of some of the poorest houses and the National Assistance Board; secondly, toward the housing authorities and the ratepayers. But the Government have not proved that this much advertised Bill will in fact work and thus make any contribution towards solving the problem.
As I said, the first contention is that if the Bill is worked it will work unfairly to some of the poorest tenants and to the National Assistance Board. Immediately after the debate on the Address, the "News Chronicle" pointed out that a great many rents would rise by one-third if the Government's plans were accepted, and it said:
It will drive many families to the public assistance officer.
That would be bad enough in itself, but it is a trend which has already been apparent. In the first year of office of the Government, 150,000 more people received rent allowance from the National Assistance Board. As the "News Chronicle" pointed out, this inevitably happens as rents go up among the poorest tenants.

Mr. John Hay: They are mainly municipal rents.

Mr. de Freitas: Not at all, although it will be so in some cases. Food prices have also risen, but we cannot go as wide as that. Does the Minister of Housing and Local Government dispute what I have said?

Mr. H. Macmillan: Did the hon. Gentleman say "rents"?

Mr. de Freitas: I said that the numbers receiving rent allowance had risen. Surely, if there is an increase in the rent allowances the National Assistance Board has taken into account the way in which other expenses have gone up. If I have made a false point, the Minister can debate it later.
The Secretary of the General Council of Sanitary Inspectors urges the Minister to insist that the landlord shall obtain the certificate of repair before he can claim a rent allowance, and claims that the present onus is wrong. Why has the advice of an experienced body like that been ignored? All this will inevitably lead to what the "Economist" in another context calls:
the danger of…bickering and litigation…
between landlord and tenant. That is as certain as anything.
I also put it to the right hon. Gentleman—if I misunderstand the position I shall be delighted to be corrected—that the owner can get the county court to annul the certificate of disrepair, but if a reactionary Conservative local authority refuses a certificate, the tenant has no appeal.
The second contention which has been advanced is that, if the Bill is worked, it will bear heavily on the housing authorities and on the ratepayers. Hon. Members have referred to the figure of £2 5s., which, as far as I can understand, comes from a calculation based on an average cost of rehabilitation of £155. Yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary told us to visit Birmingham to get the best available evidence on this point. I have not visited Birmingham, but I have had some pretty good evidence from councillors. It was mentioned in the debate yesterday. Surely the figure of £155 is ridiculously low? The Birmingham average is given as between £180 and £190. That was the figure mentioned yesterday, and it has not been challenged. If that is so, surely on pure calculation the figure which is derived from it is nearer £4 than £2 5s.?
We are told that the Bill was based on Birmingham's experience, but it completely ignores the fact, which I mentioned in another connection, that Birmingham took in the good as well as the

bad. It also ignores the fact that Birmingham, unlike most of the other 1,500 housing authorities, has a population of one million and is able to afford a large staff to deal with these matters. Most of the other housing authorities are much nearer the size of a few thousand, and cannot possibly afford the staff to deal with them. No wonder it will bear extremely heavily on housing authorities and, therefore, on the ratepayers.
The third contention is that the Government have yet to prove that the scheme will work. This leads to speculation as to why it was introduced. Either the Government, with their usual lack of understanding of municipal affairs, did not realise the nature of the problem, or the Minister tried to persuade his colleagues and the country into thinking that the scheme really would work when it would not. In the first place, the Minister and Government are innocent but foolish; in the second, the Minister is guilty and very nearly very clever.
If the Government did not realise the nature of the problem and thought that the scheme would work, it is surely incredible to write, in a serious document like a White Paper, that repair work "has been neglected…since 1939,"without going into any qualifications. Everybody who had anything to do with housing before the war knows that millions of pounds of the 40 per cent. went into the pockets of the landlords and not into repairs. The incentive point has been dealt with. It must have been rather galling to notice that the day after the scheme was announced the "Financial Times" headlined its attitude "property owners dissatisfied."
As for the administrative problem, not a word was said in any speech or in the White Paper, about an emergency training scheme for sanitary inspectors. Yet there is already a shortage, not so much in the south but in the northern industrial revolution towns. [Interruption.] I think I overheard the Minister say that it would be much worse if our policy were followed. But we would not try to implement our policy unless we faced the practical problem of having an emergency training scheme for sanitary inspectors. In the north an army of sanitary inspectors will be needed to begin to work this scheme. The Minister should deal with that point and study the


implications of this shortage of sanitary inspectors.
I cannot understand anyone with the smallest knowledge of pre-war housing conditions subscribing to the White Paper's statement that in 1939
only 6 per cent. of the people were living in unfit or overcrowded houses.
I did not have a long or wide experience of this matter, but I lived for two years in the East End of London, in an area which is very bad from the point of view of slums and overcrowding. In that area the figure would have been much higher. I am not seeking to make a point about that, but I am saying that over the country as a whole the figure was much nearer 20 per cent. That was the kind of figure which was used by social workers and, as far as I can remember, by the then Minister of Health when speaking in the House during the war in 1943. Surely there would have been some qualifications if the situation had been appreciated? Under the 1936 Act a man, his wife, a child and a baby could live in one room and still not be overcrowded. Surely it is necessary to make some qualification in that respect?
Again, the 1936 Act did not define "unfit for human habitation," and there were differing opinions about it in the courts. This Bill makes an effort to define it, but why has not the Minister put into the Bill the definition suggested in 1946 by the Central Advisory Building Sub-Committee on Fitness? Why does not the Bill define "reasonable expense"? A Tory rural district council needs a lot of guidance as to what is reasonable expense.
Now I come to the next contention, that of humbug—to borrow a word from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). This contention is that the Minister tried to persuade his colleagues and the country into thinking that this scheme really would work when it would not. The Minister talked about grasping the nettle boldly. I was a little suspicious when he used the phrase in that way. If he had said, "I do not think there is much in this, but at least it is an effort. It is worth a few days of Parliamentary time, and we shall see if we can work out something."—if he had said that I should have understood him, but he talked about "national

crusades," "grasping the nettle," and "Operation Rescue."
I must congratulate him on his public relations. The Press gave him plenty of publicity for this rent scheme. My right hon. Friend's scheme for improvement grants under the 1949 Act did not get it. Historians of the future will be interested to see the difference in the publicity. If publicity had been given to the fact that a Labour Government were introducing improvement grants it would have knocked into a cocked hat the Conservative line that the Labour Party were against private owners. That was the line that the Conservatives were running all over the country. They forget that after six years of Labour Government there were more people owning their own homes than ever before in our history. It is charming to find, in the White Paper on which the Bill is based, the statement that landlords and tenants must be made aware of the provisions of the 1949 Act.
My right hon. Friend has spoken of tugging at the fig leaf of the Minister to expose him. I have neither the verbal felicity nor the manual dexterity to match that in any way. I shall put it rather more straightforwardly, and say that the Minister should be prosecuted for obtaining credit for this by false pretences. He would not be treated so badly after conviction, because the judge would look kindly at a man of his presence, who was so obviously trying to better himself politically. Whether the Minister is innocent but foolish, or guilty and very nearly very clever, the result is the same.
Like my right hon. Friend, I am going to ask the House to reject this Bill because I regard it as our duty to expose the pretensions of the scheme. If, against our advice, the House passes this Bill, then in Committee we shall work to put some good in it on the assumption that the scheme can be made to work. The problem of repairs exists, and we must not forget that the wretched tenants are not to blame for this Bill, and we must not be put off the subject merely because of the Bill itself. I am sorry to find that the Government are planning to take the Bill upstairs, as it may well be that they themselves on second thoughts, as my right hon. Friend suggested, want to bury it.
The Parliamentary Secretary ended with some comments on the building industry. It is indeed a classic example of the inefficiency of private enterprise. I wish, too, that it would try new and unconventional methods and become efficient like the aircraft industry and other industries. I mentioned at the beginning the abolition of the Ministry of Works Section on incentive bonus and payment by results, and the reduction by 10 per cent. in the staff of the Building Research Station. Why were these things done when both of the Ministerial speeches we have had on this Bill have said that Ministers want new methods and to break new ground? Why?
It is just 100 years ago that William Morris set the path, as he thought, for a new social era, and, as Mumford pointed out, he made the design of the dwelling-house the point of departure. Today, when we have an increasing technical revolution, with radio, refrigerators, television, and so on, we must realise that the means of communication, especially TV, are turning the dwelling-house into the market place of the old classical urban civilisation. The social revolution is not far behind the technical revolution.
So every day the house becomes more and more the centre of the life of the people. From that flow two facts that we in our life-time will never be able to ignore: First, that an increasing proportion of our national wealth will have to go to the dwelling-house, its provision and its maintenance and its equipment, because it will become the centre of our whole lives, for whether we like it or not, that is the trend; and second, that private enterprise find it less and less attractive to provide these houses, these homes, for the mass of the people. What is true of provision is, of course, even truer of maintenance.
Even in the United States the late Senator Taft went on record as saying that the capitalist system could not house the people as a whole. This summer in the United States I talked to a number of business men interested in housing. Most of them realised that, in spite of the slogans of the chambers of commerce, capitalism had failed in this test, and the discussion there was chiefly on

the part to be played by public money and by philanthropy.
Those hon. Members behind me who have given many years to studying the problem of housing and of maintaining the houses of the mass of the people want to give the Minister this credit. His Bill has aroused interest in this repair problem. However, we do not want the Minister to feel he is justified in claiming too much. His Bill gives us an opportunity to debate the problem, but it does not begin to solve it, and his victory is over the Leader of the House and not over the slums. But I wish he would not talk about grasping the nettle. What he seized is a fancy sort of posy from the Primrose League.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Ian Horobin: Those of us who disagree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) must agree that we have listened to a very good-tempered speech, and though I am afraid that very little of what I have to say will be agreeable to most hon. and right hon. Members opposite I shall endeavour to preserve the same approach, because this is a problem far too serious to be much helped by merely slinging verbal felicities or fig leaves or nettles at one another. Most of what I want to say will be concerned with Part II of the Bill, because I think that is the most important.
I do not think that the speech we have just heard was quite fair to my right hon. Friend in saying—if I understood the hon. Gentleman aright—that his speech was almost irrelevant to the debate, because a major point was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) of the importance of considering the physical resources, and what we have heard today has certainly, even if it has not carried complete conviction, shown that there is reasonable cause for hoping that there is, putting at its mildest, a certain amount of play in the industry that we may hope to take up on the lines suggested. I admit that there is a good deal that we heard yesterday—and I heard almost the whole of the debate—that still remains to be answered from the point of view of whether this Bill, especially Part II of it, will work.
Before I come to what I have to submit to the House on that I would say one


word on Part I, slum clearance. Almost as a variation of the suggestion that this Bill is giving undue money to landlords we have heard today already a good deal of argument that it is unreasonable that local authorities should take over only the slum houses, leaving landlords the rest. One would imagine that hon. and right hon. Members who make that suggestion have forgotten that any houses which are dealt with in this way are taken away from the landlords completely. The landlord loses everything.

Mr. Shurmer: How much has he drawn in rent?

Mr. Horobin: The houses are taken at site value. They always have been. Quite rightly, too; but he loses every penny. [Interruption.] I want to proceed because there are other hon. Members who want to speak in this debate, which has been characterised throughout by the fact that almost as many people have sought to make speeches by interruptions as have been called by the Chair.
Whether we like it or not, unfortunately, and whoever, for the sake of argument, is responsible for that state of affairs, there will be for a number of years to come some slum landlords, and the point at issue is whether, that being so, it is not better that the slum landlord should be a local authority doing something for the unfortunate people who are continuing to live in slum conditions, or whether they should be left to deteriorate still further and nothing be done for the tenant at all.
That is all I wish to say on the slum clearance part of the Bill. I want to address myself with some care and particularity, if the House will bear with me, to the all important point of the workability of Part II, and I would say at once that it would be very foolish to claim, and I do not think my right hon. Friend would himself claim, that this is as it stands, or even when it is amended in Committee, a complete solution to the overwhelming problem of the millions of houses in private ownership that are not all that we should like. But it is going equally much too far in the other direction to suggest that none of these repairs will or can be done.
It is true—I am glad that most hon. Members opposite seem to agree, although

with some hesitation—that any suggestion that vast profits are going into the hands of anyone benefiting under Part II is quite beside the mark. I will quote a case from London to illustrate the sort of house which alone, as I shall try to show, will benefit under Part II. This is a six-room house in South-East London where the net rent is £29 10s. per annum. The statutory deduction is £9. The most that could happen would be that £18 a year could be added to the rent. The qualifying amount over three years would be £54. That particular case does qualify, but why? I ask hon. Members who have given vent to many wild and general charges about what landlords have been doing to note these figures. This is not a hypothetical case, but the case of an actual house, of which I have the address. It qualifies because the landlords have not spent £54 in the last three years, but have spent £138 on it.
What will happen under the Bill is simply that for the next three years, claiming the allowance, they will get back no more than what has already been spent in the last three years. Any suggestion that profits are going to a house which can claim the rent allowance is beside the point. [Interruption.] I shall give a number of other cases, if I do not weary the House. These figures lead me to remind the House of a point which, I think, is of great importance. We have heard unsubstantiated and very general statements suggesting that no landlords had ever spent money on their houses.

Mr. Lindgren: Who said that?

Mr. Horobin: I find it very easy to understand why so many hon. Members opposite suggest that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Over and over again it has been said. It was said by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Lewis: If the hon. Member had been here and listened attentively to what I said—and will repeat—he would know that I said that there are in London and other big cities thousands upon thousands of slum dwellings which have been neglected year after year, particularly in the inter-war period when there were many unemployed building workers, when labour and materials were very cheap, but these landlords drew the money and did nothing about repairs to their property.

Mr. Horobin: All that long interjection is irrelevant because the hon. Member was talking about slum houses and I am not talking about slum houses.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member should not accuse me of saying something which I did not say.

Mr. Horobin: I do not need to spend a great deal of time on this. I find it easy to understand why so many hon. Members opposite are so anxious to prevent landlords or anyone else going before a county court judge. It is because the county court judge would soon be able to satisfy himself. I am not a lawyer, but I have had a great deal of experience of this matter in an area next to the constituency of the hon. Member for West Ham, North. I do not think that the hon. Member will disagree, on consideration, that county courts have a very good reputation for dealing with the social problems of small people—very much better than some of the higher courts.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Lewis indicated assent—

Mr. Horobin: I am glad to have the agreement of the hon. Member. I think it a strong point of this Bill that on questions of fact, such as whether landlords have, in fact, spent money on their houses, if there is a dispute they can go before the court and substantial justice will be done.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: What about the 14 days?

Mr. Horobin: That is a Committee point. I think the period should be increased, but that can be considered in Committee.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I sympathise verymuch with what the hon. Member said about county court judges. Would the hon. Member agree that it would be an improvement in the Bill if the refusal of a certificate of disrepair were also to be appealable to a county court judge?

Mr. Horobin: I should not like to commit myself on that matter, but it is a Committee point which might well be gone into. It is a strong point in this Bill that the landlord has to prove that he has spent some money and has the right of going to court to make his case.
We have heard from the benches opposite the alternative policy of the Opposition. I am not arguing whether they could or not, but they did nothing about slum clearance and we at least are trying to make a start on that. They did nothing, apart from war damage repairs which, in part, were localised—[Interruption.] Will hon. Members allow me to finish the sentence? They did nothing to deal with the problem of ordinary repairs in private houses, which was made impossible, as we all know, by reason of the cost and the restriction of rents. I think it essential to get this point clear. They suggest that all these houses should now become the property of local authorities, which, in practice, means that they are proposing the complete abolition of the Rent Acts. All these houses would go into the hands of local authorities and cease to have protection of the Rent Restriction Acts.

Mr. Shurmer: Mr. Shurmer rose—

Mr. Horobin: I know that the hon. Member has helped every hon. Member who has hitherto spoken to make his speech, but I shall not give way now. It it true that houses not built by local authorities have not hitherto ceased to have that protection. But, when the Bill goes to Committee upstairs, are hon. Members opposite to vote against the provisions in the Bill which give local authorities the right they all need—and which we all know they need—in the case of any kind of house in their ownership, to increase the rent and bring it to what is necessary to do repairs? Everyone knows that local authorities must have that right. Will hon. Members opposite vote against it? They know they will not.
If they do not vote against that it re mains true that their policy is to remove the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts from all rented houses as soon as they can be got within the ownership of local authorities. They cannot escape it; their policy is to bring all these houses to the ownership of local authorities. I challenge them to vote against the provisions which ensure that houses which local authorities have bought, acquired, or built are withdrawn from the Rent Acts. The distinction between us is that hon. Members opposite say there should be a general increase in rents without any restriction and no guarantee that any


particular house has any repairs done in it at all. [Laughter.] It is no use hon. Members laughing. I have had experience of this matter.
There is no obligation upon a local authority to do repairs on a particular house before putting up the rent of that house. The rents of council houses all over the country have to be put up so that the local authorities who own them may keep their rent funds more or less in balance, in spite of the big subsidy. If hon. Members opposite deny that a great many people are unwillingly paying increased rents, although no repairs are done, I should be very surprised because it is well known.

Mr. Lindgren: The alternative is simple. A council house tenant can sack his council, but an ordinary tenant cannot sack his landlord.

Mr. Horobin: I have been interrupted a number of times, so I will not give the figures which I intended to give. But we are not dependent on any theories as to what may happen. I have made it my business to obtain particulars from a number of local authorities. I have particulars in my hand from one in the North-West of England where already the rents of council houses have been raised more than twice the amount of the statutory deduction and, therefore, more than the tenant would have been liable to have had his rent raised under this Bill, if his house had been a private house instead of a local authority house. We are not seeing things under the bed. This is actually happening already.

Mr. Shurmer: Where?

Mr. Horobin: In the North-West of England. The further point which I am making is to show why we are hopeful that a substantial and reasonable number of repairs will be done. I say at once—and I do not think there will be any dispute on this point—that if the landlord was a completely free agent I do not believe that a great many repairs would be done in response to this very small increase in rent. Some would carry out repairs for various reasons, but not others. But, of course, the landlord is not a free agent. Whether we like it or not he is already clamped within the Rent Acts and what he will consider is this. Is it better to

allow these houses to fall down until he eventually gets a clearance order, or, if he can qualify for the increase, will he do better by doing so? I think that is a major point.
Secondly—I want to put this very briefly—I think it is common knowledge that a good many of these repairs are, in fact, done more cheaply, contrary to common opinion, in connection with the larger houses. Some of the larger houses are a better repairing proposition than some of the semi-jerry built post-war houses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have some support from hon. Members opposite. Obviously, a number of old houses are thoroughly bad, but there are many in our industrial cities, and especially in the North, where the actual structure of the houses is often better from the point of view of repairability than some of the modern ones. Therefore, in many of these cases I do not think that it is as hopeless, as has been suggested by some hon. Members, to think that some repairs will be done.
Now I want to come to closer grips for a few minutes with the condition which has to be fulfilled before a notice of increase of rent can be served. I want to consider, first, the condition and the amount of money which has to be spent—either three times the statutory deduction in one year or six times in the last three years. Here again, I would begin by saying that if we were to consider nothing but the chances of getting the Bill to work, I think that this condition would be a mistake. I think it would cause a great deal of trouble on both sides and a lot of complications, and, if we are not careful, some damage to the working of the Bill.
I can see why the condition was put in, and I think that it was right to put it in. But, psychologically, the difference is enormous between persuading a tenant to pay a higher rent when he can at least see that the rain is not coming through on to his bed than to persuade him to do so, in respect of a vast estate or whatever it may be, upon which money has been spent on repairs but not on his particular house, and when the tenant of that house is likely to have a wet bed for another year. Psychologically, it is difficult to increase the rent in that case. Therefore, it is


much easier and, I think, fairer to link the second condition with the first overriding condition that the house must be put in repair.
I put it to the Minister that he is running a risk here. As this is only a secondary condition he should make it elastic, and be very careful that he does not, by trying to make the condition too right, stop people from starting. One must bear in mind that throughout the whole of Part II of the Bill, unless the landlord serves notice of an increase of rent nothing happens at all. The tenant cannot do anything about it. The local authorities cannot do anything about it. No one can say, "I should like repairs done. Will you put up my rent?" Unless the landlord or his agent serves an increase of rent notice nothing happens and my fear is that if we are not very careful we may stop the thing beginning at all as a result of this second condition.
I shall leave all the Committee points to the end. First, we have the very common case of the small owner. I am not making any point about the small owner being hard up and that sort of thing. I am simply dealing with the case of the owner of one or two houses. We know about this so well in the North. The joke used to be that everyone in his town owned his own house and the house on each side. It is a very common case for a small owner to own two or three houses and some of these have extremely small statutory deductions and extremely small rents.
I want to give one actual example which is very typical of a great many cases of this kind. Here is a house—I have no objection to saying that it is in my constituency—the gross value of which is £13 and the statutory deduction £5. The repairs increase would, therefore, be 3s. 10d. a week. In the North, unlike London, we have the complication that rates are usually included in the rent, and we have, therefore, to subtract the rates because we are not concerned in this Bill with the rates. The present net rent after deduction of rates is 5s. 4d. Out of that, as is usual in my part of the world, we have to pay chief rent, insurance and other things, and when we have deducted all that from the 5s. 4d. the rent comes to well below 4s. a week.
How can the owner afford to pay 3s. 10d. out of 4s.? That is not at all

an isolated case. I have a list of 25 other cases with which I shall not weary the House. It is, unfortunately, true, whether we like it or not, that a great many of these small owners cannot possibly claim now because if they handed over all their net rent, that amount in the last three years, let alone in the last year, would not be enough to claim the rent increase.
Therefore, for these people, if this condition remains as it is and unless immediate and effective steps are taken to make it possible by much more active use of the provisions under the 1936 Act, Sections 90 and 91, to advance money to them, so that in the future they can claim, we shall find that for that type of small house the owner, without any capital resources of his own, will never be able to start. He will not be able to get over the first hurdle.
I now come to a more important aspect of the same problem. I have obtained particulars of a large number of housing properties in different parts of the country. Hon. Members will see that similar problems arise even in the case of comparatively wealthy estates. In the first place, it will often be impossible to claim the allowance under the second condition with which I am dealing if we retain the period of three years. Either the period should be extended to five years, or else it will only be possible to claim by spending more on repairs this year, which is exactly what we want to happen. In the case of quite a surprising number of these estates, even where no claim can be made for the back period, the amounts spent on repairs are sufficiently near to the qualifying figure to make it worth while spending a bit more, so to speak, to throw a sprat to catch a mackerel.
I want to give one or two instances. I have a case of 24 small houses on which, in the last three years, the expenditure on repairs is just over £500. The qualifying figure would be £1,000, so the landlord cannot claim now. But if he were in a position to claim, the landlord could add £336 to the rent. By doing a little sum it will be seen that the landlord will get just over £500 if he spends all the increase on repairs, which is exactly what he will have to spend—namely, half £1,000. There we have a small group of houses on which quite a


substantial sum has been spent, the landlord of which will not be able to get over the first hurdle but will almost certainly, if he spends the money, be able to get it back the following year.
I have another case of 63 houses. The landlord has spent £3,400 on the property, which is quite a large sum of money. The qualifying amount is £4,600, so he cannot claim. But if we make the same calculation, it becomes clear that there is every reason for thinking that this Bill will see several hundreds of pounds extra spent on repairs on those houses in the next few years.
I should like to give a somewhat different example of a set of over 100 working-class flats. The qualifying figure is £8,000. In the last three years £14,000 has been spent on this property, so that these flats qualify at once. But it so happens that in those three years over £1,000 was spent on dry rot. I deduce two things from that. First, many people will be able to claim if the period can be extended to five years because it will be possible to average these exceptional cases. Secondly, many people, while not being able to claim this year, will be encouraged to spend more on their repairs and will claim next year.
In addition, and this is of extreme importance, surely that last case of over 100 flats—I could give several more examples—shows that the Bill will secure that in the case of houses which in the future receive a large expenditure on dry rot ora gable end or roofs or underpinning, the landlord of which will refuse to throw any more good money after bad, so that they are pulled down or become slums, enough money will be available to ensure that those exceptional expenses are met, because exceptional expenses of that kind will automatically ensure that even if the landlord was not able to claim before, he will be able to claim in the future.
I am sorry to have been somewhat particular but, after all, one or two actual cases are worth a lot of general statement. I submit, therefore, that we are not being unreasonable in hoping that under this Bill a great deal of money will be spent on repairs which otherwise would not be spent, and that houses which are now in danger of further

deterioration will be saved. Even if it is shown that not all the 6 million houses will immediately be brought into good condition but that we can make a substantial start, it will be a good thing.
I have one last point to make on the first condition. The first condition holds, in Clause 40, an extremely grave danger for the Minister's plan, to which I wish to draw his attention—namely, the subtle distinction between repair and good repair. Here again, custom in the North of England differs from the South. While one cannot generalise, I think it is broadly true to say that tenants in the North do the interior decoration which, in the South, is still the landlord's responsibility. I am not going to argue whether that is good or bad, but I want to put to the Minister a practical point, and I have checked it up with a number of estate agents of great experience.
Several have said to me that if this means taking on a new liability for the interior decoration of property, they will hesitate to advise their clients to serve notices. If they do not serve notices, the Bill is dead. We need not spend a lot of time arguing whether or not landlords should do interior repairs. In the case of a genuine weekly tenancy, there is no reason why the tenant should do any repairs; but where we have a long lease, owing to statutory protection, I should have thought there was a case for saying that the well established distinction between tenants' repairs and landlords' repairs in interior decoration should come into play.
Whatever our views on that point may be, the fact remains that while the increase in general repairs may be sufficient or so nearly sufficient as to enable a start to be made, I fear that in Committee we must look carefully at the exact new obligations which may be put upon landlords if we call upon them to bring into complete decorative repair the interior of their property, and maintain that complete decorative repair. If, under the first condition, we are putting such a new serious liability on landlords that they will not serve notices, that will be just as serious as if we tie up the second condition so closely that they cannot qualify or do not have the money to do the work.
There is little doubt in my mind that a substantial amount of new and valuable work will be done on a vast amount of


privately owned property. It is in that hope that we ought to commend this Bill. Having watched the development of the housing policy of the Government, we have good reason to be grateful. Ordinary fathers, mothers and children will for a long time have reason to be grateful for the fact that the housing problem has attracted to its solution one of the most subtle, receptive and courageous minds which have ever been applied to this supreme social problem in our time.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Albert Evans: The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) has given us some interesting examples, and has made what I took to be some criticisms of the formula on which the Minister is working. No doubt we shall hear more of some of the points he made when we come to the Committee stage. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, pardon the hilarity with which his remarks about local authorities were received on this side of the House. We do not understand that local authorities are bad landlords. We believe that their tenants have adequate protection without the operation of the Rent Acts, and, from our wide experience of local government, we believe that local authorities maintain their properties in good condition both outside and in.
I agreed with the hon. Gentleman when he said that the deplorable conditions of some millions of our houses is not a party matter. I think both sides will agree that this is a problem which must be faced and for which a solution must be found. It is difficult to say exactly how many of these houses there are. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of 6 million, 4 million of which required repair, and the Minister himself talked of 7½ million, and broke down that total into different categories. However, I think we can all agree that the figure involved is quite substantial, certainly several millions. There are probably about 4 million houses which, unless action is taken soon, will deteriorate to the point of becoming a total loss to the community.
I am sure that all hon. Members, and anybody who is at all interested in the subject, will agree that something must be done to prevent the loss of such a

large number of houses from the stock of habitations available to the community. Therefore, we agree that the repairs must be done, but I think we can also agree that such repairs will cost a lot of money. There can be no dispute about that. When we come to the question of who is to pay for these repairs, there may be some difference of opinion.
I believe it would be agreed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that if these houses are properly repaired, a reasonable increase in rent would be justified. Indeed, I think that the majority of tenants would agree that if their present semi-slum dwellings could be made habitable and some modern conveniences installed in them, they would be prepared to pay a reasonable amount in addition to their present rent. I have actually tested that point, and I found that the tenants were almost unanimous in saying that they would be prepared to pay a little more in such circumstances. But, in saying that, we must remember that there is a section of tenants who are not in a position to pay more. They are the poorest of our people, who are not dealt with in this Bill.
Those people, who, because they are poor, are unable to afford an increase in their rent—the "submerged tenth," as they used to be called—are not covered by this Bill. That is a matter which we cannot very well discuss today, but it is one to which this House will have to address itself before very long—how to provide decent housing accommodation for the poorest of the community at a rent which they can afford to pay. Many of them cannot afford the present rents charged for private lettings or for local authority houses.
The hon. Gentleman said that local authorities have found it necessary to raise their rents, and there can be no dispute about that. Local authorities have found that a good house, properly maintained, often means an increase in rent. If we agree that repairs have to be done, that the money has to be spent, and that rents will have to go up in consequence, then I think that the Government must also agree to the consequences that will follow.
If the houses are put into sound repair and rents are increased to cover the cost,


then it logically follows that there will be quite an upward jerk in the cost-of-living index. That will be the inevitable outcome of the success of this Bill. Therefore, the Government must realise that as a consequence of their proposals—if successful—wage claims will be forthcoming and will have to be met. National Assistance payments and pensions of all kinds will have to rise with the increase in the cost of living.
I now turn to Part II of the Bill, with which the hon. Member for Oldham, East dealt so fully, and I propose to add one or two points which occur to me. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with others who have spoken that this is the core of the matter. It attempts to deal with the several million houses which are in different stages of disrepair, and attempts to find means by which to bring them back into repair and thus prevent them from becoming a total loss.
When I read the Bill, I was surprised to find that it differed considerably from the White Paper. Indeed, I think it fair to say to the Minister that in one important matter the Bill belies the White Paper. On reading the White Paper—on which we only had a short debate—I said to myself, "Well, the Minister evidently intends to make sure that the repairs are done before rents are increased." That was the impression which many of us got from reading the White Paper.
I consulted several of my right hon. and hon. Friends and we decided that the Minister really meant business, and that he was going to see that the landlord did the repairs. We came to the conclusion that the Minister really had learned the lesson of the 25 per cent. increase in the 1920s, and that he realised that landlords generally—not in all cases—could not be relied upon to do the repairs unless there was compulsion behind the Measure that allowed them the increase.
I am afraid that we were mistaken in thinking that, and I think it would be well to remind the Minister of the two paragraphs in the White Paper which, I suggest, misled the House and the country. Paragraph 38 says:
Her Majesty's Government intend that a landlord will be permitted to claim a repairs increase only if the house is in good general repair as respects tooth structure and decora-

tion. If the house is not already in such a state of repair, the landlord must put it right before claiming a repairs increase.
They are perfectly clear words. Paragraph 39 says:
Further, Her Majesty's Government intend that no repairs increase shall be allowed unless and until the landlord can show that he has actually spent money on repairs.
The Parliamentary Secretary can raise his eyebrows, but those two paragraphs misled some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who, after all, are not without experience in their reading of White Papers, into the conviction that the Minister really meant business, that he was thinking of the houses first of all and intended to get the repairs done. But we were mistaken. The Minister's speech on the White Paper showed clearly that we have been far too simple and that we were wrong. We had forgotten that the Minister likes to do unpleasant, difficult things in a light and pleasant way, and that seems to me what he has attempted to do this time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am sorry to interrupt, but surely the two conditions to which he referred are implemented in Clauses 18 and 19 of the Bill. Clause 18 reads:
Where a dwelling-house is let under a controlled tenancy…subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act,—(a) if and so long as the following conditions…are fulfilled, that is to say—(i) that the dwelling-house is in good repair"—

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The Minister cannot enforce it.

Mr. Marples: We can, because the local authority will decide whether it is in good repair, and Clause 19 says that the landlord must have spent the money on it.

Mr. Evans: It is quite evident that the mind of the hon. Gentleman and my mind run on different tracks. I am saying that the words of the White Paper led many hon. Members on this side of the House to think that the Minister intended to see that the repairs were done before the rent was increased. In fact, we know that the reverse is true. We now know that the landlord will not have to prove his case but that the tenant will


have to disprove it. The onus will be put on the tenant to get a couple of days off from work to do so.
The hon. Member for Oldham, East talked about the essential justice of the county court, and we will not disagree with that, but does the Minister realise that this excursion to a county court by countless thousands of poor tenants is a sheer impossibility? [An HON. MEMBER: "It is good for the lawyers."] It is all very well to say that justice is for everybody provided that they can pay for it. I do not like cynical phrases and it is clear that the safeguard which the tenant has of going to the county court is not practicable.

Mr. Horobin: If the hon. Gentleman looks at Clause 21 he will see that the landlord has to do exactly that; he has to satisfy the court in an action for recovery. All the tenant has to do is simply not to pay the rent. If the question is in dispute as to whether money has been spent, the landlord has to go to the court to get his rent. The tenant does not have to do anything.

Mr. Evans: Now the hon. Gentleman is inciting tenants not to pay their rent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, he is saying that the remedy is not to pay. Has the hon. Gentleman ever been in the position of being ejected for non-payment of rent? I can assure him that the fear of non-payment of rent is a very real one in the minds of working-class people. It is not sensible to suggest that the tenant should refrain from paying his rent in order that the landlord shall take him into the county court.
The Minister should explain why he has adopted this method of the landlord claiming his increase before the certificate of disrepair has been obtained. Will he explain why he could not reverse that procedure and say that the landlord, before he raises the rent, must get a certificate of good repair from the local authority? It could be done. It is quite a practical suggestion. I know that yesterday "The Times" said that it was not a sensible or practical suggestion to put the onus on the landlord. It said:
To put the onus on the landlord to prove that he qualifies for a rent increase, rather than on the tenant to challenge the increase, is impracticable.
"The Times" made that assertion without giving reasons to support it, but there

is another authority, apart from the "Thunderer," which has a larger experience of this practical point than "The Times" leader writer. The Sanitary Inspectors' Association has considered this matter and has put on record its considered views on this point of the certificate of good repair and the certificate of disrepair. In paragraph 62 of its memorandum, headed "Increase of Rent," it says:
As private owners are by law required to carry out repairs, there appears to be a need for rent adjustment, at least in certain circumstances. The Association suggests that any such increase, being applied to specific circumstances, perhaps transitory in character, should be subject to periodical review, and in any case precautions would necessarily have to be taken to prevent the imposition of an increase without specific performance of the duties…
Now I come to the point I am making:
This safeguard could be applied by a requirement that, precedent to any increase, the sanitary inspector should (in the same manner as obtains in the reverse direction in the Rent Restrictions Acts), issue a certificate that the repairs have been satisfactorily completed…
That is the considered view of a large body of men who know more about this matter than any others in the country, and the Minister would do well to look at it again. If the right hon. Gentleman does not make some alterations in this part of the Bill, it will not work. Therefore, if he wants his Bill to work he should consider the proposals made by the Sanitary Inspectors' Association and also consider whether he cannot alter the Bill in Committee. We will readily help him to do so on that point. If the right hon. Gentleman allows the present position to remain, he will unloose on the local authorities a volume of work beyond their capacity. Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise what he is throwing on to the local authorities as a result of these proposals?
There is in this great Metropolitan area of ours a borough called Islington. It is a great borough. In that borough alone there are 40,000 assessments, estimated to contain 90,000 rentals, almost all of them 70 to 100 years old. Knowing the state of disrepair of those properties, and knowing the ways of landlords and their agents, I shall consider it my duty to advise at least 40,000 of those tenants to apply at once to the local authority, and to the courts if necessary, as soon as the landlord makes his claim.


I think the Minister will find that, if he does not alter this part of the Bill, he will have great difficulty in trying to make it work.
Now I want to say one or two words upon Part I of the Bill. I shall be brief, because much of this has been covered already. Apparently, slum clearance is not to be left to private enterprise—the local authorities have to do it. We all agree that the local authorities must do it, and do it in stages across, perhaps, the next 20 years. The squalor left by private enterprise must be cleared up by local authority enterprise.
The local authorities also have the new task of patching up these houses, the demolition of which is to be delayed. We understand from Clause 6 that the Exchequer will pay a certain amount and the local authority will have to pay a like amount; in other words, it is to be on a 50–50 basis as between the Exchequer and the local authorities. Is not this a new departure in housing finance? Is it not true that, since the war, housing finance has been on a three-to-one basis? I understand that before the war it was on a two-to-one basis. That is my information from a reliable source.
Now we have this 50–50 basis, the local authority paying an amount equal to the Exchequer grants. It might be that the exact details of these financial provisions have not been finally settled. I understand that talks are going on with the local authorities, but I have been told that the Minister has committed himself and has told the local authorities that the 50–50 basis has been fixed and that he will hold to it. I should like to know whether that is so and whether the Minister has bound himself to that basis before the Second Reading of this Bill. The Minister owes it to the House to explain exactly to what he has committed himself with the local authorities. If he wants the local authorities to go ahead with their part of this immense job he will have to reconsider and change his financial proposals.
All of us wish to have this job done. We want to see the several million houses put in a condition worthy of the people who live in them and worthy of the nation, but I am afraid that we shall

be disappointed by the operation of this Bill. I fear that Part I will not function because of the unfairness of the financial Clause, and Part II will fail because of the need of private enterprise to make a profit. It will not be profitable enough for the landlord to operate this proposal on any wide scale. The homes of our people are a national responsibility. The provision of homes for the people will always be a problem before Parliament and I believe that all of us will come to realise in time that that responsibility can only be carried out by public enterprise.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke: The House listened with interest to the thoughtful and moderate speech just delivered by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans), and I have some sympathy with his comments on the financial proposals. But when the hon. Member suggests that the right way to arrange the machinery relating to increase of rents is in every case to require that a certificate of good repair has to be obtained from the local authority even though the tenant and the landlord are completely agreed about the situation, he must realise the fantastic addition to expense and work that he is recommending.
The hon. Member referred to the huge figures of controlled properties in Islington. Borough councils have many important duties, and there is not an unlimited supply of sanitary inspectors in the country. Is the hon. Member really going to recommend that sanitary inspectors should leave their most urgent functions in other directions, to go round and inspect houses and grant certificates of good repair where landlord and tenant are entirely agreed that the property is in good repair?

Mr. A. Evans: I am aware of the volume of work that that proposal would involve for the local authorities. That point has been made before in this debate, but I think that that is preferable to the reverse proposal whereby, in duty bound, we should have to send thousands of people to the local authorities to obtain a certificate of disrepair. I think that the hon. Member will know from practical experience that the local authorities could do that job, as I suggested, on a staggered basis over a period of days.

Mr. Brooke: I have stated my view once and the hon. Member has stated his view twice. I will leave it at that.
I pass on to a subject on which, I hope, we shall be in agreement. Surely we shall all welcome the fact that the White Paper and this Bill appear to presage the resumption of the slum clearance drive which was so tragically interrupted by the war. In this country we were able to make far too little impression on the slums until 1933. Then, in the six years before the war, people from slum dwellings were refocused at the rate of 200,000 a year. We are all agreed that since the war progress has been negligible.
The real difficulty, the crux of the matter, is how to rehouse—"decant"is the standard word, which most of us dislike—those people who have to be moved out of their slum houses before new homes can be built on that land; and often those new homes will not satisfactorily house as many people as the old hovels filthily housed before slum clearance took place. It is only when the rate of new house building rises above 300,000 a year that slum clearance becomes a possibility. For that reason, first of all, I am most deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend for the whole of his housing policy, leading up to this chance of progress in clearing the slums.
Reference has been made to the standard of fitness laid down in Clause 7 of the Bill, and I was surprised when the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) criticised it as in some way falling short of the standard recommended by the Mitchell Committee in 1946. I have the Report of that Committee; it is quite a rare document now. I can see in it no substantial difference. If there is a difference I hope that we shall hear the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) on the subject, because she signed that Report and she would appear better qualified than anybody to say whether this Bill carries out her Committee's recommendation.

Mr. Mitchison: I should like to call the hon. Member's attention to one very remarkable difference, in that the repair required by the recommendation of that Committee was to be good general repair, a phrase which reappears in this Bill.

Mr. Brooke: I think that the hon. and learned Member is making the mistake which so many people have made, of not comparing like with like. I am referring to paragraph 23 of the Mitchell Report, which recommends that a certain subsection in the 1936 Act
should be repealed and be replaced by a Clause somewhat to the following effect: 'For the purpose of this Act the house shall be regarded as unfit for human habitation if it is not…'.
It is that paragraph in the Mitchell Report which has to be compared with Clause 7 of the Bill, and it appears to me that the words in the Bill carry that out entirely.
However, I join with other hon. Members in expressing the hope that when he winds up the debate my right hon. Friend will give the House more explanation than it has had up to the present of the financial proposals in Part I of the Bill. The suggestion is a 50 per cent. grant to local authorities in respect of loan charges on the cost of acquisition at site value, combined with a grant of 45s. a year towards the cost of temporary maintenance of the unfit houses.
The first of these costs is virtually fixed. It is not something to which the local authority, by good or bad management, can make some difference; but the other is unfixed and variable. I should have thought it desirable that the Treasury should be as generous as possible in respect of the first part of the grant—that relating to the cost of acquisition.
Slum clearance must be pursued with determination or not at all. It is essential to get the enthusiastic goodwill of the local authorities for that great endeavour and it is useless for the Treasury or any Government to imagine that local authorities or the general public will tolerate the rates rising ceaselessly up when other forms of taxation are going down, because, as we all know, the basis of rating is a narrow one and rates do not operate truly fairly as between one payer and another. I am not in the least worried about the charge that local authorities will become slum landlords. They are temporary trustees and they can the quicker cease to be slum landlords the better they get on with their job. But a sound financial settlement which will secure results is a sine qua non.
I have one further financial point to make, in connection with the Amend-


ments to the 1949 Act. Incidentally, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and one or two hon. Members opposite have suggested that that Act failed because the Press omitted to give it sufficient publicity. We must blow that story sky high. The reason why that Act, which everybody welcomed, in fact failed to produce results was because almost immediately it reached the Statute Book one of the recurrent economic crises of those years fell upon the country, and the Labour Government found it necessary to cut drastically the monthly quotas for repair, maintenance and conversion work which were allowed to the local authorities. The result was that the average local authority hardly had enough quota even to license work in fulfilment of statutory notices, and it could not dream of going out and inviting applications for conversions, because it would have been unable to license them.
The amendments to the Act seem all to be in the right direction, but I ask whether the substitution of 8 per cent. for 6 per cent. is likely to be sufficient if we want to get the work done. In another part of Clause 13 the period for which the house is expected to remain habitable is lowered from 30 years to 10 years. How many owners of house property will be able to put a major improvement in hand if they are limited to an 8 per cent. return on their outgoings and the life of the property may be less than 20 years? It seems to me that that is drawn too close and that it would be wiser—andI believe my right hon. Friend could do this with the common consent of all parties—to remove that limit and to extend to all cases the power of the local authority referred to in subsection (6) of Clause 13 to determine what the permitted rent shall be.
As for Part II of the Bill, which is the more controversial Part, I listened with intense interest to the defence of the Government's approach put up last night by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). He went right to the heart of the matter in explaining and arguing out why it was right to rely on the private owner and the building industry to do this job, which we all agree to be necessary, rather than to throw the whole weight of it on the local authorities and then

possibly damage the efficiency of the building industry.
What this Bill is—and it claims to be nothing more—is a practical plan for enabling a start to be made. We have heard a number of speeches from the other side of the House apparently desiring to provide by legislation that 6 million rent-controlled houses shall be repaired immediately. Indeed, one of the most often repeated criticisms has been that under the Bill too little will happen. The proposal coming from the benches opposite—that if the local authorities take over all these houses everybody will get their houses repaired at once—surely is the certain way to overload the building industry. I have heard hon. Members opposite say that on several occasions—

Mr. Mitchison: Never.

Mr. Brooke: I should have thought that those who remember what the overload of war damage repairs did in the way of harm to the building industry would have hesitated to hold out hopes that people would get their houses repaired well and quickly if the local authorities took them over and started doing the whole thing at once.
One hon. Member in the debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech suggested that under the local authorities this virtue would be gained: that the worst houses would be repaired first. I tried to imagine that in application to my constituency. We have upwards of 15,000 rent-controlled properties, and under that plan, presumably, the borough council would first have to make a survey of all the 15,000, then get them into an order of badness and then start the work. There is no spare staff to do this job throughout the country. If a local authority like mine proceeded at the rate of 20 houses a day, it would complete 15,000 in three years, and then I suppose it would start getting on with repairing the worst of them. Time will not wait for that.
We must have an immediate start. The hon. Member for Islington, South-West has admitted that people are willing to pay more rent for their homes if they are properly repaired. The fundamental question of the debate is, who is to pay? The Bill says that the tenant must not pay more than a certain amount. The


Opposition's plan would remove that limit. As I said in the debate on 4th November, "Vote Labour for much higher rents."
How much will it cost on average, if the Socialists' plan for transferring all rent-controlled houses to local authorities is carried out? What will be the all-in average cost of buying the house, presumably at market value, and then carrying out the repairs?

Mr. Lindgren: Surely the hon. Member does not suggest that local authorities should buy a house at market value when there is a sitting tenant?

Mr. Brooke: If they are not buying at market value there will be an element of confiscation in the plan. Perhaps this is the crux of the question, and perhaps the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) will deal with it when he speaks at the end of the debate: do the Opposition propose that owners should sell their houses at market value to local authorities or at some figure below market value?

Mr. Lindgren: Would the hon. Member tell us what a landlord is losing if he gets the sitting tenant value?

Mr. Brooke: It is just as possible to determine the market value of a house with a sitting tenant as it is without a sitting tenant. Having purchased the house, the local authority has to spend quite a substantial amount of money on it. What will the combined cost of all that be? Will it be £400, £500, or £600? If it is £500, the local authority, having to meet loan charges on £500 at 4 per cent. and wanting to amortise that sum over 30 years, will need 11s. a week in rent to do it. On top of that 11s. there will have to be put all the costs of repairs and management and insurance, which amount to over 10s. a week for the pre-1914 cottages of the London County Council.
We even heard a horrifying suggestion yesterday from the hon. Member for Newcastle - upon - Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) that if the local authorities took over all these rent-controlled houses they would actually be able to make some profit out of them, which could go to make good the loss on the slum or near-

slum houses. That would mean yet more on the rent. So it does not look as though, under the Socialist plan, the tenant of the present rent-controlled house will come off well so far as his rent is concerned.
The Government plan holds the field. It is based in essentials on the proposal put forward by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in 1951, though it is a bit more unfavourable to landlords than that.
The Opposition appear to be completely confused in the case which they have been putting before the House during today and yesterday. They say at one time that only local authorities should do this work and not the private landlord. that it should be taken right out of the hands of private landlords. The Opposition had their chance in 1949 if they really believed that. They did not confine the 1949 improvement grants to local authorities. I have in my hand a circular issued in September, 1949, when the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was Minister. In that circular it was stated:
Action by the local authority will be particularly appropriate where there are groups of houses which lend themselves readily to improvement and for which comprehensive proposals are not forthcoming from the owners.
At that time the Socialists' view was that the owner should be encouraged to do as much as possible, and the local authority should do the rest. Now that they are not in office, they turn round and say that the local authority should do everything.
They cannot decide whether their case is that this Bill will not make repair sufficiently profitable to the landlord—that was the argument which we have heard from the Front Bench opposite—or will make it too profitable. The case that it will make it too profitable was given to Holborn the other day in this leaflet:
Landlords of old houses are rubbing their hands with glee. They are expecting a rich harvest from the Tory Government's new rent proposals.
That is what is said when there are votes to be caught or stolen. That is the kind of thing which we heard yesterday from the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley)


and the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson).
The hon. Member for Clapham made a speech which sounded a most damaging one. He quoted dividends paid by various property companies. The complete answer to that is to look at the facts about the housing societies. The housing societies and trusts are bodies which under their constitution are limited to a low rate of interest, or none at all, and all surplus profit goes back into the property.
Since 1947, the housing societies have been pleading with the Government that their properties should be freed from control, because under the system of control they found that they could not maintain them in a condition which they desired and which the tenants required. Nobody has ever suggested that the housing societies waste their money or misuse their revenue. For that reason, I am proud to be the first in this debate to welcome the provision in Clause 28 of the Bill that the properties of these bodies, as well as the properties of local authorities, are to be freed from control. My one request is that my right hon. Friend will consider making Clause 28 fully comprehensive. At present there are, as he may know, a few charitable trusts and housing societies which could not qualify under the definitions in the Clause. I trust that in Committee my right hon. Friend will favorably consider Amendments to put that right.
I return, in conclusion, to the hon. Member for Clapham. I am sorry that he cannot be in his place. He quoted figures designed to prove that property companies owning rent-controlled house property were paying large and increasing dividends. This happened towards eleven o'clock last night, and I have since looked up one or two of the cases which he quoted.
The hon. Member referred to Brixton Estate Limited, which he said owned seven acres of working class properties in Brixton. He went on:
There is no doubt about these being rent-controlled properties.
I have consulted a standard work of reference, which states that Brixton Estate Limited "owns an estate of about seven acres in Brixton, comprising offices, factory buildings, garages and workshops"

On that kind of argument the hon. Member for Clapham was resting his case against the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: May I put to the hon. Member the point that this company does in fact own, in addition to the kind of properties which he has mentioned, rent-controlled residential property?

Mr. Brooke: I should not be surprised, and I am not denying it. But the case which the hon. Member for Clapham was putting was that these were companies which were managing rent-controlled property so profitably that they were able to pay high and increasing dividends out of it.
I intend to give the House one further example. The hon. Member quoted also Bell London and Provincial Properties Limited, which in the same work of reference that I have mentioned is thus described:
Owns controlling interest in Marble Arch Restaurant Ltd., Park West Service Station Ltd."—
and finally a company at whose profitability I cannot guess—
Liberal Guarantee Company Ltd.

Mr. Barnett Janner: Has not the hon. Member done sufficient research to find out when their properties which are rent-controlled were purchased by the companies, and why they purchased them at that time, knowing that they were rent-controlled and knowing what the probabilities were in regard to those repairs?

Mr. Brooke: No, I have not had the time to make more detailed inquiries. I am submitting that if we are to take the dividends of those companies as evidence in this debate, we need proof that the profits of those companies are principally derived from rent-controlled properties. That was certainly the impression which was given to the House last night, and it is not the case.
I know that I have been tempted into fields of party controversy, but these matters with which we are dealing go so near the heart of England that I hope that however much we differ upon them we shall be yet able to join in making this Bill as good as may be. I hope, too, that my right hon. Friend, who has


done so much in two years for the housing of the British people, will bear particularly in mind, when the Bill is passed, that full information about all the powers, responsibilities and duties arising out of the Bill should be made available to everybody in the simplest and clearest possible form.
I say that because I do not believe we can make the machinery of this or any other Bill perfect in so complicated a field. I believe, however, that we owe to all concerned, tenants, landlords and local authorities, not only clarity of purpose but clarity of explanation.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. G. Lindgren: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) need never apologise for bringing in what he termed party politics. He of all Members opposite speaks with some knowledge and experience of local government, and from his speeches this House profits considerably. But I think he strayed from his usual fairness when he chided my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) about his 1949 Housing Act.
The hon. Member suggested that the Opposition now wanted the local authorities to take the initiative, whereas under the 1949 Act my right hon. Friend proposed that private enterprise should take the initiative, and that the local authorities should come in if private enterprise failed. The difference is that under the 1949 Act the local authorities had control the whole time. If there was an improvement grant, not only were the local authorities contributing, but they were passing the plans and inspecting the work. The hon. Member for Hampstead suggested that we were saying that local authorities should be the only ones to do the work. That may be one way of putting it. I would prefer to say that the local authorities are the only people who can be trusted to do the work.
Perhaps the only hon. Gentleman opposite who faced up to the problem was the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I am delighted to see the hon. Member in his place. His regular attendance is an example to many hon. Members. My opposition to this Bill is general and fundamental, and that is why I appreciate the approach of the hon. Member for

Wolverhampton, South-West. The first fundamental question I wish to ask is, why did local authorities become concerned with the provision of housing at all? It was because private enterprise failed to provide the houses. It is impossible for the speculative builder or the investor to provide a house at a rent which the ordinary working person can afford to pay.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And when they do it is a shoddy one.

Mr. Lindgren: I shall come to that later.
After the 1914–18 war. when it was no longer possible for private enterprise to make a profit out of housing the working-class, the then Coalition Government had to provide local authority housing. We started off with the Addison Act of 1919, and then followed the Chamberlain Act of 1923 and the Wheatley Act of 1924, almost yearly to the Housing Act of 1936 which consolidated all the others. Local authorities became concerned with the provision of housing because private enterprise had failed to provide them. I wish to make that point at the outset.
This Bill will fail because private landlords are not in the business for the benefit of the community, or out of consideration for the tenant, and they never have been. They are there for what they can get out of it. There are, of course, isolated exceptions. I know there are some good landlords with estates in the country who look upon their houses as part of the general assets of the estate. But I am a cockney and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans). We regard landlordism from the point of view of our experience of landlords. This patronage, about which some hon. Gentlemen opposite speak, may happen in some isolated village where they live, but it has not happened to those of us who live in the towns.
One of two things will happen under the provisions of this Bill. Either landlords will put up the rent and do little or no repair work, and pocket the money, or they will not put up the rents because they have no intention of doing any repairs, and so there will be no change in the situation at all. I said that landlords would put up the rent and not


do any repairs, and the Minister raised his eyebrows. The right hon. Gentleman may have the best intentions in the world, but we have lived under Tory landlords and we know what they do. We suffered from the 1920 Act.
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what will happen. Every landlord will put up the rent irrespective of whether or not he spends a penny on the property. He will send a notice to the tenant, and what will the tenant have to do? He will have to go to the local authority to ask for a certificate of disrepair, and he has only 14 days in which to do it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No.

Mr. Lindgren: Then what is he to do? There is nothing under this Bill to stop a landlord, who has not spent a penny on the property, from sending a notice to the tenant that the rent is to be increased—[Interruption.] I did not hear what the Minister said, but I will give way if he wishes to interrupt me.

Mr. H. Macmillan: So it is not such a mouldy turnip after all?

Mr. Lindgren: The Minister can interject how he pleases—about mouldy turnips or other people's speeches—but we are speaking with some degree of experience of living in towns where there are property-owning landlords.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: He would lose at the county court.

Mr. Lindgren: That is the point. Whoever loses there is one group of fellows who are always in, right from the start, and that is the lawyers. They will get their money every time. With them will be the architects and surveyors. After all, the lawyer wants to see the money on his desk before he takes up a case.
I think the problem was faced by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West when he said that the choice lay between the suggestion of the Opposition and whether we can make private enterprise pay. He said, as proof of his support for this Bill, that he would suggest that in the inter-war years private enterprise was showing the way. He said that first of all private owner-occupiers were buying the houses and then persons were able to purchase houses and live in them.

and they were paying mortgage interest and repayments. Secondly, 110,000 houses were built for letting by private enterprise from 1937 to 1939, I think those were the years the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Let us deal with the first point. It was not municipal enterprise or socialism which was responsible for the term "jerry-building." That term was used to describe the work of the speculative builders in the inter-war years, whose standard of construction was such that the industry and everyone else was ashamed of it. They were even assisted in their evil work by the building societies. Has the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West heard of the Borders case? Owner-occupiers were being fleeced. Properties were jerry-built, and the poor folk who went into them found more often than not that the property was a millstone round their necks for 20 or 30 years.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that the amount of mortgage repayment was little more than the rent. That is not altogether true, but I will give him that point. The house purchase schemes operated with the second mortgage of the building society on the builder of the house were almost a social evil. People who were induced to undertake obligations which were more than they could carry were almost legion. The problems which arose as a result of financial strain were terrific.
I worked among people who were in a fortunate position. I was a railway man and we were not subject to the cursed fear of unemployment during the Toryism of the inter-war years. So long as we behaved ourselves we knew we had a steady job. Many people outside who purchased houses were not so fortunate. Local authorities and building societies had to face many problems caused by tenants being missing overnight and leaving the keys behind in the house. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, "Nonsense"—

Mr. Powell: I did not.

Mr. Lindgren: —but in the Home Counties hosts of people had to do a moonlight flit.

Mr. Powell: I did not use the expression, "Nonsense." I merely repeated the


word "tenants," because the hon. Member seemed to be referring to tenants and not to prospective owner-occupiers. But now that he has kindly given way to me I would also remind him that the percentage of defaults on building society mortgages in the years immediately before the last war was under 1 per cent.

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman is not talking of the rackets which went on with the second mortgage through the building societies, the houses for £5 down and all road charges paid. They were the ones which were in the mind of the hon. Member when he spoke last night, and they are the ones to which I referred when I spoke of the jerry-builder and the curse of the building industry in the inter-war years.
I leave that point and come to the question of houses to let. The hon. Gentleman said that there were 62,000 houses to let of a gross value of under £20 in Greater London. He said that 62,000 of 110,000 houses in the Greater London area were of an average gross rateable value under £20.

Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman please look at the Official Report?

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman said,
 'of 110,000 houses built for letting between 1st October, 1937, and 31st March, 1939' "—
that is in 18 months—
 'almost 62,000,' "—
that is, over half—
 'were of a rateable value not exceeding £13, or £20 in Greater London.' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 890.]

Mr. Powell: Yes.

Mr. Lindgren: I challenged the hon. Gentleman when he made that statement. I admit that my researches since then apply only to North London. I could not find any of these houses of under £20 gross rateable value until I come to the Hatfield Rural District Council where there were some of a gross value of £20. But I have not been able to find any in the North London area in the short time since the hon. Gentleman made his speech.
When one examines the houses which were built outside London one would not suggest that they were of best quality standards. This is a part of the policy of the Government. There are interests

behind politics. Do not let us hoodwink ourselves. One of the interests behind the Tory Party is the property owners and the Central Landowners' Association. This is a vested interest within the Tory Party. Hon. Gentlemen opposite can accuse me of being a vested interest within the Labour movement, as representative of the trade union movement within the Labour movement. I accept that, but this is a vested interest of property owners within the Tory Party.
This is within the general policy which the Minister has followed on housing. The right hon. Gentleman likes to make himself out as a tremendous success; but in the inter-war years the general standards of council houses were a music-hall joke. When the comedian in the music hall got tired of talking about the mother-in-law he used the council house as a standby—hear the woman next door change her mind, and all that sort of thing. A succession of Tory Governments between the wars depressed housing standards to such an extent that during the last war when the Tories were worried, as they always are during a war, they promised all sorts of things and set up the Dudley Committee. It was not a Socialist Government but a Tory Government who set up the Dudley Committee to determine post-war housing standards.
The houses which the Minister is now building are considerably below Dudley standards. They are even below the standards of houses built by local authorities in 1938. There is in addition the two-bed roomed house which the Minister of Works seems to be quite proud of. That is not a house which ought to be encouraged. I interjected when the Minister of Works was speaking—perhaps wrongly—that hon. Gentleman opposite do not live in two-bed roomed houses.

Mr. Hay: I do.

Mr. Lindgren: Most of those who do live in them do so from Monday to Friday and have another house in the country for the week ends.

Mr. Hay: No, I could not afford that.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) is twisting the argument of his earlier interjection which was designed to give the impression that while the Government could claim more


houses, because they were smaller houses, they could not claim so many bedrooms. The Minister replied that there were 50 per cent. more bedrooms, so that argument failed.

Mr. Lindgren: I agree. That was the effect of my first intervention. It is true that the houses built under the standards of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, whatever else one might say about him—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentle men opposite can say what they like. This at least can be said for my right hon. Friend. The houses built when he was Minister were built to Dudley standards which the Coalition Government promised would be adopted. But the houses which are being built today are of a debased standard. The Minister is reducing ceilings to 7 feet 3 inches and taking away all sorts of amenities—

Mr. Shurmer: Putting stairs in the kitchen.

Mr. Lindgren: —reducing the superficial floor area and bringing the number of bedrooms down to two. If one lowers standards and makes the houses smaller, with two bedrooms instead of three or four, of course one can build more houses even with the same amount of materials.

Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: Is it not the case that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) has claimed credit for designing these new houses?

Mr. Lindgren: With great respect to my right hon. Friend, I should not like to live in a house that he or any other Member of this House designed. My right hon. Friend is a Cambridge don and a politician, and I much prefer to live in a house designed by an architect and built by a builder. Not even the Minister can claim credit for those designs. They are the work of architects within the Department for which a particular Minister happens to be responsible. It is true also that the density in housing is being increased.
My objection to the Bill is fundamental. I just do not believe that hon. Members opposite are interested in the housing and housing standards of the working class. I have had 25 years' local government experience of fighting the Tories on those standards and I do not

believe that they have changed a bit. The Minister's action in debasing the standards since he came into office convinces me that there is no sincerity whatever in the desire of hon. Members on the Government side to improve the housing standards of the people. I believe that their desire is, as it always has been, to improve the rent and profit that comes from the necessity of housing the people, and that that is the basis of the Bill.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: In view of the fact that I do not wish to detain the House very long, I do not think I ought to be tempted into following the hon. Member for Welling borough (Mr.Lindgren) into such fascinating speculations as to whether his right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) is a better designer of houses than his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), or, indeed, to borrow the hon. Member's phrase, as to what might be said against his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. The House will look forward to hearing from the hon. Member on that topic on some other occasion

Mr. Lindgren: And in a different place.

Mr. Walker-Smith: —and, perhaps, in a different, if not, technically, in another place.
I want to do what has been a little unusual in this debate by starting my observations about the Bill at the beginning, at Part I. I welcome Part I of the Bill as constituting a signal to local authorities to resume the great slum clearance campaign under Part III of the principal Act, the Housing Act, 1936. The House will appreciate that the Conservative Party have a very good and long record in regard to this matter—

Mr. Tom Brown: Such as?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the hon. Member. Some of his hon. Friends are notoriously selective in their study of history, but in direct answer to the hon. Member's question, the Tory Party's record began with what he will know as Sir Richard Cross's Act—

Mr. Lindgren: That was in 1889.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, it was not 1889. The Artisans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875, is


known as Sir Richard Cross's Act. It was passed, as the hon. Member will recall, in the second Session of Disraeli's great Administration of 1874. The Act to which the hon. Member refers is the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, which was passed during Lord Salisbury's Administration and which held the field until the Act of 1925.
To come a little more up to date, during the 1930s under the 1935 and 1936 Acts there was great progress in the matter of slum clearance. But for the unhappy interruption of the war, there is no doubt that the slum clearance problem would have been solved by this time. In the 1930s there was this very rapid advance on two fronts: first, under Part III of the Housing Act, in regard to slum clearance, and secondly, in the provision of houses by private enterprise, not only for owner-occupancy but also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) explained yesterday, for private letting, plus a number of ordinary local authority subsidised houses under Part V of the Housing Act, 1936.
That was a sensible approach to the problem of the deployment of the building industry and the provision of housing, and it comprised a proper allocation of function. The local authorities and the contract builders concentrated on their work under the Housing Act in the provision of houses and flats under Part V and also on slum clearance. At the same time, the private builders, the non-contract builders, were deployed on the business of private enterprise housing for owner-occupancy and private rental.
The history of the 1930s shows that that allocation of function produced a very rapid advance on these fronts, accompanied by various other factors of an encouraging nature. In the first place, in the 1930s, subsidies under the Housing Act, 1936, we redirected to those in need of subsidies and did not produce the social anomalies and paradox which we have seen in the later 1940s and in the 1950s. There were, at any rate, in the later part of the 1930s, rising standards of house construction with the formation of the House Builders' Registration Council. Also, there was a rapid and continuous improvement of standards within the building industry itself. The later 1930s saw the advent of the holidays-with-pay scheme in the building industry,

the guaranteed week and the wet-time scheme, all notable advances in the field of conditions of the building industry.

Mr. Gibson: The unions were entitled to the credit of the holidays-with-pay scheme in the building industry.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think the hon. Member would be so unfair as to try to take for one side of the industry all the credit for what was an agreed measure. If Mr. George Hicks were still in the House, with his recollection of what happened in those days, he would not take that point.
Along with those advances there was in the field of rent restriction a policy of decontrol which was a satisfactory policy, because it was based on the provision of alternative up-to-date housing accommodation at an economic cost. Therefore, when I heard the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale say yesterday that the Government were beginning to repeat the pattern of pre-war Tory housing, I took it to be a considerable compliment to my right hon. Friend.
If this welcome restart of the slum clearance campaign is to be a success, the local authorities must be stripped for action and not cumbered about with a great many other additional functions. It will be necessary once again to seek a more logical and practical allocation of functions. I echo what was said last night by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, that this will mean a larger proportion of the provision of non-slum clearance houses by private building, and it will entail a revision of the subsidy position under Part V of the Housing Act, 1936, to ensure that the maximum amount of public money is available where it is most needed: that is to say, in the implementation of the slum clearance campaign.
Now may I turn to Part II of the Bill. So far as this is concerned, it is generally agreed in the House that some action is required to arrest the processes of disrepair. There is less agreement as to whether the extent of disrepair is to be laid at the door of the landlords or not. In my submission, the House has heard very little evidence that, although there are good and bad landlords as there are good and bad tenants, the landlords as a whole are to blame. I do not mean that


there has not been a good deal of iteration, but there has been very little evidence.

Mr. Janner: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that, in a very large number of cases—involving, possibly, millions of houses—the landlords did not use the 25 per cent. for repairs?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes an assertion, without any very clear evidence about it. I do not say that it did not happen in some cases, but I do say that the law gave a remedy in Section 2 (1, d) of the Act of 1920 which was available to the tenants. Furthermore, if landlords allowed houses to get into such disrepair, the local authorities had their power to serve statutory notices under the Housing Acts. Therefore, there were very considerable curbs on any landlord who was neglecting his liability to repair in the way which the hon. Gentleman suggests. I do not say that none of them failed in their duty, but I do say that there is no evidence of this wholesale disregard of these responsibilities which is suggested; and hon. Members really do little credit to the average intelligence, courage and resource of the tenants when they suggest that they were so pusillanimous and ignorant in regard to their rights in this matter.
I think that probably a more important question now is whether the ratio of rents and repairs in the post-war years is in balance. Here the House has been helped by the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale, which in sum show that, whereas before the war 11 per cent. of expenditure went on rent plus rates, it is now a figure of only some 7 per cent. When the House remembers that that is an inclusive figure including rates, and also remembers how much rates have risen in the post-war period, it will be realised how the ratio of rent to repairs has got out of balance in the post-war years.
Indeed, in this country we are spending only half as much on rent and rates as before the war, as against 4½ times as much on tobacco as before the war. It is therefore quite clear that there is an unbalance between the amounts of rent and the cost of repairs in these post-

war years. From that, I think the House will conclude that any remedy must include the possibility of rent increases, having regard to the general position and also to the extent to which local authorities have found it necessary to raise their rents in the last few years.
Looking at the report of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, I find, for example, these increases in regard to weekly net rents charged for three-bedroom houses owned by local authorities and completed before 31st March, 1945, as between 1950 and 1952, Bath had to raise rents by 4s. 3d., Doncaster by 2s., Merthyr Tydfil 2s. 3d., Nottingham 2s. 5d., Preston 2s. 7d., South Shields 3s. 7d. and West Ham 3s. 1d. I have selected these as being some of both kinds—some Socialist and some non-Socialist authorities—in order to show the generality of the position. Therefore, I think the House will say that there is no impropriety in a Measure which is going to allow some rises in rents. The House will no doubt think it right that the rise should be linked to the cost of repairs, as it is in this Bill; and that is what is done in Clause 18.
I must be frank with the House. I think that what is sought to be done in Clauses 18 and 19 is very difficult. What my right hon. Friend is trying to do is to tread the razor's edge between hardship to tenants on the one hand and inaction by the landlord on the other. The difficulty here is that any inducement which is sufficient to ensure action by the landlord may bring hardship to the tenant, but, on the other hand, in trying to avoid hardship on the tenant it is quite easy to result in a nullity because there is not sufficient inducement to the landlord. After all, that is the basic problem of this part of the Bill.
Along with the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), I took part in a radio discussion on the Home Service of the B.B.C. some time between the issue of the White Paper and the publication of this Bill; and not the least interesting thing about taking part in these discussions is the correspondence which they bring. I studied the letters which I received with care, and, in substance, what the tenants' letters said to me was this. They made two points, in the main; first, that the record or conduct of the landlord in their


particular case was such as to disentitle the landlord to any increase at all, and, secondly, the difficulty of finding the money with which to pay an increased rent.
I did not feel much difficulty about the first, because, quite clearly, on the facts as stated in these cases, there would be no benefit to the landlord in the provisions of this Bill. The second point was one on which I felt some difficulty and with which I had considerable sympathy, though I think in the generality of cases it probably is not an undue burden; that is to say, when we compare the present position of wages, it is not an undue burden to have to pay the increase in rent for better accommodation, having regard to the fact that the increase will not, in the ordinary way, be very much.
Again, looking at the report of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, I find that in the case of 31·7 per cent. of the houses in England and Wales the additional rents could not exceed £8 a year. I do not say that that is negligible, but I do say that, to a man working on present day wages who is paying for a better house, it is not unreasonable. The difficulty arises in regard to people like old-age pensioners and those on National Assistance and so on. The House must face this problem. It may be that in some cases, public money will go to pay an increased repairs increase, but it will go because there will be a better house as a result, and a better house is part of the assets of the nation. I think the House should be prepared to accept that position.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, in those cases, the Assistance Board ought to be able to take up the cases themselves direct, and make the landlord substantiate the claim for a little extra rent?

Mr. Walker-Smith: That is an important point. I think the hon. Gentleman referred to it in his interesting speech yesterday, and it will probably be further explored in Committee. I should like to pass to what the landlords said to me in the letters that they wrote after that broadcast.
Their points were these: First, "Where am I to get the money from with which to do the repairs before I get the increase of rent?" Their second point was that the tests under Clause 18 were too exacting. I find the first of those points very

difficult, not so much for the large estate company as for the small landlord. I do not have the answer, and I was not able to give it to them. I am not a financier, but is clear that if landlords are not able to raise money to do this work, that part of the Bill becomes a nullity. That is why this is a very important aspect of the matter. I do not know what influence my right hon. Friend will have on the banks, but the point is obviously most important. If the Bill is to be effective, the small property-owner should be able to raise the money and to satisfy the tests in the Bill.
In regard to the tests being too exacting, my correspondents specified various points, many of which have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin), my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), and others in the debate. One of their difficulties which has been less referred to is under Clause 19, the "stopper" Clause, as I think it is called. Some of these correspondents point out that the gross values are very arbitrary and out-of date, as all of us with any knowledge of rating realise.
This is the Nemesis of the postponement of the quinquennial revaluation, an unfortunate effect of the blunder made by the late Socialist Government in Part IV of the Local Government Act, 1948. A good deal of inequity will result in regard to it, more particularly if the meaning of the Bill is to link it to current gross values and not to gross values as they may be after the quinquennial revaluation. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will refer to this point in his reply, because I am not sure about it.
The other points included the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North and Mearns last night about the statutory deduction including not only repairs but insurances and other expenses necessary to keep the property in a state to command the rents. That being so, it may be that that is too exacting a test.
Therefore, I feel bound to say that it would be wrong to express the view that it is certain that these proposals will secure widespread repair. On the information that is known to me I could not feel that certainty. I hope it is probable and it should be possible. While there is that necessary uncertainty in


regard to Part II of the Bill, there is absolute certainty about the undesirability and impracticability of the alternative put forward by the party opposite for the municipalisation of rent-controlled houses. Perhaps I might summarise my objections to that course.
The first is that the course proposed is a gradual remedy for an urgent problem. Secondly, that it will be extremely costly. In spite of what the hon. Member for Wellingborough says "Challenge to Britain" does refer to "fair compensation." If compensation is fair, it will be astronomical. If it not astronomical, it will be unfair. Thirdly, that the alternative will impose a great burden on the technical and other staffs of local authorities which will gravely hinder them in this great duty of slum clearance, under Part I.

Mr. Blenkinsop: rose—

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sorry. I am in this difficulty that when I give way often it means that I speak too long. I have given way several times already.
Fourthly, the objection is that, from the point of view of the tenant, it would effect the end of rent control; not absolutely immediately as a matter of law, because the old controlled houses will presumably retain their rent control. The 1939 rent-controlled houses will become decontrolled immediately they are taken over by the local authorities, under Section 3 (2) of the 1939 Act. So far as the old controlled houses are concerned, there will be overwhelming pressure to bring them into line with the 1939 controlled houses and with the new houses of the local authorities, so as to get rid of rent control from all local authority houses. As soon as that happens, there will be increases of rents such as have already taken place in the instances I have quoted, or there will be increases of rates, which would bear immediately on the tenants, because all tenants would then be direct ratepayers.
From every point of view—of the tenants, of good administration, of economy, and of the houses themselves—the scheme put forward by the party opposite is doomed to failure. That being so, the Bill, with its very good provisions for slum clearance and its, at any rate, possible provisions for the achievement

of better repairs, is a very considerable advance which can be commended with confidence to the country.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) started his speech by proving that the Conservative Party had a good record in slum clearance, and to do so he had to go back to 1875. One is tempted to comment on what he said that, having made the slums, they then set about to clear them. The hon. Gentleman spent a great deal of time referring to the 1930s, and he took a phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) about "the emerging pattern of pre-war Tory housing" as a compliment. Of course, we are getting the same pattern as we had in the 1930s, an immediate house with as many amenities as you want for people who can afford it, but not nearly sufficient houses for people who have not the means.
I represent what must be one of the worst-housed constituencies in England, if not the worst, the centre of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I shall refer a good deal to my own area because I know it best. My people are living in appalling, degrading and humiliating conditions of overcrowding and decaying houses. I did hope that when, in the Gracious Speech, the Government said they would tackle this problem, the Bill, when produced, would be some help to the people I represent.
I have tried to look at the Bill objectively, but I must say that as it is framed it will not begin to touch the fringe of our problem. It will, no doubt, improve houses where the standard of maintenance is already fairly good, but it will not do anything at all for the houses which are the core and heart of this probblem, the millions of houses that will be written off in five to ten years' time unless a great deal of money is spent on them now. I do not believe that they will be touched by the financial provisions of the Bill.
To begin with, the Bill is, of course, based upon a false premise. In the White Paper, the Government say:
The success of the Government's measures for the building of new houses makes it possible now to turn to the old houses.


On the next page, they repeat this by saying:
This expansion of the new housing programme enables us now to turn to the problem of the old houses.
A good deal has been said about this, and I also want to say a word about it, because it really is not true. If we strip the Tory housing record, such as it is, of all its ballyhoo, we see that the party opposite have provided practically no more accommodation than did the Labour Government.
During the tenure of office of the present Government, the waiting list in Newcastle-upon-Tyne—I hope the Minister will remember these figures—has gone up by 2,000 to 17,000. They are certainly providing more houses, but in Newcastle-upon-Tyne this year 70 per cent. of all the corporation houses have been two-bedroom houses.
When the Minister of Works was speaking—having been duly prompted by his right hon. colleague—he said that 50 per cent. more bedrooms were being provided. Some time ago I did a bit of research on this question. I have not the figures for 1953, because, obviously, they are not complete, but this is what has been happening on the question of bedrooms, and bedrooms, after all, are the best yardstick for measuring the amount of accommodation provided.
If we compare 1948 with 1952, we find that in 1948 one-bedroom houses represented 3·4 per cent. of all council houses built, whereas in 1952 they represented 7·5 per cent. of all the houses built. In 1948, 13·2 per cent. of all the houses built were two-bedroom houses, whereas in 1952 such houses represented 35·1 per cent. of all the houses built.
Now let us look at the increase in the number of three-bedroom houses, which are the most useful of all. In 1948, 80·4 per cent. of all the houses built by the Labour Government were three-bedroom houses while in 1952 the proportion fell to 54·6 per cent.

Mr. Nicholls: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has any experience on his local government housing committee, but he surely must know that local authorities build the sort of houses which the applicants on their housing lists require. He will find that in the industrial areas more than 60 per cent. of the

applicants on the average waiting lists want two-bedroom houses. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that although the demand is for two-bedroom houses, local authorities should build three-bedroom houses with all the extra cost and extra use of materials which that involves?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman referred to my experience in local government. I am a member of the City Council of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and for some time before I came here I had the honour to be the leader of my party, which is, unfortunately, in a minority on that Council. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the figure of 70 per cent. is not based on a proper analysis of the waiting list. The Newcastle-upon-Tyne Council is a Tory council and they want the Tory Government to build 300,000 houses a year. That is why there is this preponderance of two-bedroom houses, and that is not only being done in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, but all over the country.
The number of small houses—and let the public get this clear—bears no relation to a proper analysis of the waiting lists. In Scotland, in 1952—and I collaborated with some of my Scottish colleagues in working out these figures from answers given by the Minister in this House—there were actually fewer bedrooms provided than in the previous year. Therefore, to say, as the Government do, that they are providing more accommodation is really not correct. They are providing houses, but fewer bedrooms.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, there is a very important aspect of this over-building of two-bedroom houses I do not know whether the House remembers the most disturbing Report of the Royal Commission on Population, but in that Report we were told that the average size of families in Britain over the past 20 years had been 2.2 children, which is 6 per cent. below replacement level. In other words, the population will increase up to 1971 and will then come right down unless we get bigger families.
I suggest that by concentrating on two-bedroom houses in this way the Government are discouraging people from having more children. In addition to reducing the size, the quality and the amenities of the houses have also considerably deteriorated. My hon. Friend the Member


for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) and another colleague from Newcastle and I recently spent half a day visiting a new housing estate. Quite frankly, I was shocked by the quality of the houses I saw. They are the worst council houses I have ever seen, both in regard to finish and amenities.
The bedrooms were only 7 ft. 3 ins. in height and their windows had been cut down to 2 ft. and pushed up to the eaves. In the second bedroom upstairs, the door could not be opened if a single bed was put in it. All the cupboards were cut out, and, by some remarkable feat of planning, the back door was next to the front door. If a bicycle was stood in the passageway, there was no room for a pram, so if the husband had to go to work on a bicycle the couple could not have any more babies. That is the sort of thing that is happening, and happening under deliberate pressure from the Minister.

Mr. Marples: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that local authorities are building houses lower than the Dudley standard?

Mr. Short: I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to come to Newcastle and to go with me to have a look at the estate of which I am speaking. He would get a shock.
The only real increase which has taken place is that in houses for sale. Admittedly, there has been a tremendous increase here. I think that the figure for this year will be 60,000 houses built for sale, but, of course, those houses are not allocated according to need at all. They are allocated according to the length of one's pocket, and, therefore, make no impact upon the waiting lists at all.
There is no lowering of standards in these houses, and no cutting out of amenities. Indeed, the announcement made by the Minister of Works yesterday ensures that the amenities of houses built for sale will be increased. That means that while council houses are going down in quality, privately built houses are going up in quality. Of course, that is pure Toryism; that is the way it has always worked out. In the words of the popular song of the day:
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

A second false premise on which this Bill is based is that the standard of maintenance was adequate before the war. In the White Paper, the Government say:
Before the war the nation was making good headway in dealing with both the provision of new houses and the maintenance of existing houses.
Again, this is just not so. The maintenance of houses was by no means adequate before the war, and I think that this fact is absolutely fundamental to the Labour Party's objection to this Bill.
I know from my experience in my own city that before the war there was gross neglect in the maintenance of houses, in spite of the 25 per cent. Increase allowed to landlords for repairs. Houses are now being written off very largely because of pre-war, and not post-war, neglect, and in those days, of course, the rent was adequate. In Newcastle-upon-Tyne whole streets of studily-built terraced houses are now disintegrating and falling into a hopeless state of disrepair because the landlords in the 1920s and 1930s—about whom the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) was speaking—were unwilling to reduce their profits. That is why the houses are now having to be written off.
The Government state, in the White Paper, and I apologise for quoting from it so much:
The other and more serious cause…
that is, the cause of houses deteriorating—
…is rent control.
Maybe that is so now, but I have had a long acquaintance of this in the North-East and I suggest that, if the landlords had played the game before the war, the present rents would have been adequate because the maintenance costs would not now be so great. But now, unfortunately—and we all admit it, on both sides—the problem is beyond them and the neglect of the houses has become cumulative. The remedy, I believe, is now quite beyond the means of most landlords.
We have heard a lot today about housing trusts, and so on, but a great many houses are owned by quite small people. It is quite common to find, in a street of flats, that the family downstairs owns the pair. That is common throughout most of the great cities. The


neglect has gone so far, however, as to be beyond their means to put it right. I suggest that the financial inducements in this Bill will not, and cannot, put back the problem of repairs within the means of landlords, because we have to bear in mind that the house must be put in order before the increase may be claimed. To put most of these houses into order again would require not £20 or £30 as provided in the Bill, but £300 or £400. A problem of that size is quite beyond the means of most of the landlords.
This anti-social attitude of the landlords between the wars has sealed their fate, because their neglect then has removed their ability to deal with the problem now. Only the resources of the State and of the local authorities are now adequate to save those 6 million threatened houses. In other words, it has now become a social problem which cannot be solved by individual private enterprise. Of course, the Conservative Government still regard housing, or house property, as a field for profitable investment. In the White Paper they say:
…the rent of a dwelling may be regarded as composed of two parts—interest on investment and cost of repairs.
We, on this side, regard housing as a social service in which private profit must have no part whatever. I think that is the fundamental cleavage between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party on housing. I always thought that the party opposite did not believe in nationalisation, but, by their present proposals, they will go down in history as the party which believes in nationalising the slums. They supported nationalisation of the railways, and condemned the nationalisation of steel; that is why, perhaps, they support the nationalisation of the slums.
The financial provisions of the Bill are based on the assumption that the cost of repairs has gone up by 300 per cent., but what we are not told is that the market value of the property has also gone up by 300 per cent. The landlord has an asset which, if he can liquidateit—and most of them move heaven and earth to do so—

Mr. Nicholls: Can the hon. Gentleman produce any evidence to show that the value of rent-restricted property has increased by 300 per cent.?

Mr. Short: I said, if the landlord could liquidate it. By that I meant if he could get possession. Those of us who represent congested city constituencies know of hundreds of cases where the utmost pressure has been brought to bear on such people as widows, and old people, to live in with someone so that the landlord could sell the house. I know that many large property owners in Newcastle-upon-Tyne have sold houses since the war at enormous profits, but in very few cases does any of that profit find its way back into the improvement of other houses. If the landlords want a new deal they must change their social behaviour. As the lawyers would say, "Those who seek equity must do equity."
There is no denying that, under this Bill, millions of tenants will have to pay more rent, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale that most of them would be quite willing to pay more rent if they could have modern amenities and a house in a decent state of repair. But people should understand that this Bill does not provide them with amenities. What the landlord has to do to benefit under the Bill is to put the fabric and the decoration into good order. Clause 40, the interpretation Clause, states:
 'good repair'…means…good repair both as respects structure and as respects decoration;
There is nothing whatever said about geting rid of the dusty old kitchen range, or putting in a bathroom, or installing an indoor toilet or anything of that kind. It does not show that side of the problem at all.

Mr. Hay: It is in a different Clause. Read the next Clause.

Mr. Short: That exists already under the 1949 Act, and here again the landlords are quite unable to do anything under that Clause because most of them have not the money. The Amendment to the 1949 Act, as suggested by the Bill will not make the slightest difference.
I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale about the equity of the increase from 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. If we take a house of an existing gross value of £25 the statutory deduction is £7. If at any time, and this illustrates the point I am making, the landlord, say, paints the exterior at a cost of £21 he can


then claim an increase of rent of £14 per annum for ever more.

Mr. Hay: Under the Bill as drafted, it is only as long as the landlord keeps the property in good repair that he can draw the increase.

Mr. Short: As I say, if he paints the exterior of the house at a cost of £21 he can increase the rent by £14 per annum for the rest of its existence. I believe that such a financial arrangement as this will only act as an irritant to the tenant and will make no difference whatever to the state of repair of the houses in my constituency, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
The White Paper mentioned a figure of 140,000 slums. But that is a pre-war figure. I think the present figure would be some hundreds of thousands, certainly considerably in excess of 140,000. I agree with all that the White Paper says about slums. In Newcastle, which is typical, the city has a wonderful, well-planned, well laid out perimeter, and a decaying heart. I am not referring to Newcastle United when I say that. It is the same with most cities. Building has been going on for generations out from the city, and the heart is now in a state of the utmost decay. That cannot go on indefinitely.
I believe that we have now reached the stage in our great cities where we have got to come back and build where we were building in medieval times, in the centre. A great many people prefer to live in the neighbourhood where they were born and bred. Many people prefer to live in the middle of cities. Of course, there are certain things we must do before we start rebuilding in our slum areas.
For one thing, we have got to set up smokeless zones. That is particularly true on Tyneside, because we have the highest tuberculosis rate in the country; it is twice as high as the national average. We could not start rebuilding in the slum areas unless we did something of that kind. Provided we can set up smokeless zones, and provided we have a good standard of industrial design in the cities, there is no reason why we should not start rebuilding in the places where we were building in the days of Queen Elizabeth I.
Unfortunately, this Bill provides nothing new, so far as I can see, for the clearance of the slums. It provides for nationalising the slums, or part of them, but it provides nothing new in the way of an inducement to clear the slums. The White Paper says:
The pace and phasing of a slum clearance programme must be for the local authority to determine in the first place—by measuring that need against the general housing need upon which they have concentrated their efforts since 1945.
It says later:
The Minister of Housing and Local Government must inform himself, and must be able to inform Parliament, of the way in which local authorities are setting about the task, and must be able to satisfy himself that their proposals, singly and in total, do not exceed or fall short of the resources that can properly be allocated for these purposes.
There we have the duty of the local authority and of the Minister with regard to slum clearance. But how can either the local authority or the Minister carry out those functions if one great sector of the campaign to save the houses is omitted? One whole sector of this campaign is put in the hands of private landlords. How, then, can the local authorities plan the campaign and the resources so that the whole thing moves forward together in the various areas? If, as we suggest, the local authorities took over streets of rented houses in need of repair and modernisation, then and only then could the local authorities and the Minister perform the function which this Bill lays upon them.
It is rather like a battle in which all the army is under a commander-in-chief, except for one independent brigade which is not under anybody. It can please itself what it does; it can please itself whether it fights or not. Yet that brigade is holding an important sector. How could we hope to win a battle of that kind?

Dr. H. Morgan: Now then, you soldiers, tell us that.

Mr. Short: I hope I have not introduced a military note into this debate. This Bill is based on a great national problem. We are all agreed about the existence of the problem. Here are 6 million houses, and, no matter whose hands they are in, they are a valuable social asset which we cannot allow to deteriorate any further. But there our agreement ends. We on this side of the House


believe that the Government's approach to this problem is fundamentally wrong, because their solution to this great social problem is based on the outmoded landlord-tenant principle. It is a principle which failed in the inter-war years, and always has failed to maintain our houses. On present costs, which are likely to go on increasing, or which will certainly not decrease for a considerable time, it is an utterly impossible basis on which to plan the housing of our people in the future.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: The rather remarkable speech to which we have just listened created one particular effect in my mind, and it was this: if the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) really believes, as he has said, that this is a vast problem which must be solved, it seems extraordinary to me that he, in common with so many of his hon. Friends, did nothing whatever about this same problem in the years between 1945 and 1950 when they were in power. No effort was made by the hon. Member and his hon. Friends to rebuild the hearts of these cities that were decaying and falling to pieces.

Mr. Lindgren: rose—

Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman made a vitriolic speech earlier. I have listened to many speeches from the opposite benches in this debate, and the same theme has run through all of them—a constant attack upon what this Government are seeking to do to put this grievous problem right, a thing which they themselves were frightened to do and from which they ran away

Mr. Short: Surely the hon. Gentleman will recollect—it is a fact which the Conservative Government so often forgets—that when the Labour Party took office the war was still on; the war was still to be won. That is not starting from scratch. It is starting further backwards. All our builders were in the Forces. They had to be got out. Damage had to be made good. The building force had to be recreated. That is where we started from—not from the point where this Government started.

Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the war ended in 1945, and the Socialist Government were still in

office in 1951, which is quite a long time by my reckoning.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: rose—

Mr. Hay: I want to talk about the proposals of the Government, because I believe this is the most important matter that we have got to discuss. The argument put forward by hon. Members opposite in connection with the solution of this admittedly grave matter of the repair of our older houses is based upon "municipalisation." As has been pointed out from this side of the House, that is an idea which, although perhaps attractive in theory, is nevertheless unworkable because primarily it is very costly.
An interchange took place between the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) and one of my hon. Friends on the amount of compensation which would be paid if this proposal for municipalisation went forward. The hon. Member for Wellingborough was quite frank about it. He said, "We will certainly not agree to anything like the market value." Yet neither he nor any other hon. Member opposite, putting forward this grandiose plan of municipalisation—which is really nationalisation under another name—have said precisely what their compensation proposals would be. Would they buy up these houses at site value? Would they carry out exactly the same sort of scheme as they did for slum clearance? Would they introduce any kind of element of remuneration for the landlord for the loss of an intrinsically valuable asset? Or would they confiscate the property without any compensation at all? That is what we want to know.

Mr. Lindgren: As the hon. Gentleman mentioned me, perhaps I might ask, if these properties are such a loss to the present landlords, what compensation does the hon. Gentleman think they ought to have? Does he suggest that the local authorities ought to buy them at vacant possession value?

Mr. Hay: I gave way to the hon. Member because I thought that I should get an answer to the question I put to him. Instead, he puts another question to me. This municipalisation plan is not mine, but his own, or that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)—with whom he was at one time


in closer contact than he is today, judging from what he said.
The other argument against municipalisation as the answer to this problem of the older houses is that it is very cumbersome to carry through. It is, naturally, very slow. Repairs will not be done any more quickly than they can be done by the small jobbing builder upon whom my right hon. Friends pin their trust in this Bill. The man working for the small private owner—the little man round the corner—can easily do the job very quickly. This could not be done by a local authority at anything like the same speed.
As far as the tenants are concerned, municipalisation would result in a complete removal of the protection which the Rent Restrictions Acts, for better or worse, still hold over them. Once houses come into the scope of the Housing Revenue Account—as a number will do under this Bill—the rent umbrella is immediately removed and the tenant is at the mercy of the local authority. The tenant will not know whether his rent will go up, whether he will be evicted or allowed to stay, or whether he will be able even to keep a lodger without having to pay a "lodger tax." He will suffer from all the disadvantages under which council house tenants labour today.
No one is going to tell me that a man who works on the bench in a workshop, or in the field, alongside a council house tenant, and who himself lives in a rent restricted house, will be very keen to exchange his private landlord—saddled as that landlord is with the shackles of the Rent Restrictions Acts—for the council, which is completely free to charge what rents it likes and to evict whom it likes, when it likes.

Mr. Albert Evans: If the hon. Member makes that assertion, how does he explain the very long waiting list for local authority houses? Most tenants of private houses are clamouring to get into local authority houses.

Mr. Hay: I know they are, because of the Rent Restrictions Acts. Those Acts have imposed such a freeze upon housing accommodation that people have been making use of more accommoda-

tion than they need. That is part of the price which we have to pay for our inaction in the field of rent restriction for so long, and part of the price we have to pay for the failure of the last Government to build anything like the number of houses we used to build before the war. The most they could work up to was a miserable 200,000 a year.

Mr. Marples: And that was only in 1948.

Mr. Hay: As my hon. Friend reminds me, it was only in 1948 that they reached even 200,000 houses. Yet we hear speeches criticising and poking fun at the fact that we are building 300,000 houses and solving the housing problem.
We have been discussing, and I have been arguing against, municipalisation. Several hon. Members opposite have equally criticised the possibility of private enterprise being properly mobilised to assist in the solution of the problem of the older houses. I believe that private enterprise is a much more flexible instrument to use than municipal control. It is certainly more efficient. There is a great deal ofmisunderstanding—and certainly a great deal of distortion—on the benches opposite, as to exactly what is the rôle of private enterprise in the provision of houses. We have heard what I call, frankly, clap-trap, about housing being a great social service, fit to be entrusted only to public servants. The fact is that the ordinary house is a piece of capital equipment, just as is a factory or a machine.

Dr. Morgan: What is an office?

Mr. Hay: If the hon. Member wants to make a speech I hope that he will later catch the eye of the Chair. He has had a pretty good innings today in the matter of interruptions.

Dr. Morgan: The hon. Member is talking such nonsense.

Mr. Hay: A house is a piece of capital equipment, and it is produced, originally, on certain economic terms. Those are, first, that the house will provide to the person who puts it there a degree of profit, because if there were no degree of profit it would not be put there, and, secondly, that it should provide revenue enough for its own maintenance and its eventual replacement when it falls to pieces, just as in the case of a factory or a machine.
Thirdly—and this is the great virtue of house property as an investment—it is a security. It is not liable to such risks as are other types of investments, like stocks and shares. From the point of view of strict economics, a house should be a self-balancing unit, providing itself with enough revenue for its own replacement and maintaining all the time a reasonable degree of profit for the person who maintains it.

Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: Is the hon. Member talking about private enterprise housing?

Mr. Hay: Yes. The hon. Member has just come in. This is the important divergence between my party and hon. Members opposite. They cannot concede that there is any virtue whatever in private enterprise providing houses in that way.

Mr. James MacColl: As the hon. Member is putting the case for private enterprise housing, he should face the difficulty squarely. It is all very well to say that there should be an adequate revenue for replacements, but there should also be some means of securing that the money is used for replacements. The whole trouble about private enterprise houses—as has been shown from the reports made from time to time—is that there is no means of securing that private landlords plough back part of their rents for replacements. They have used the rents for their own purposes, and that is why we are in the present mess.

Mr. Hay: That is a very well taken point. I would only refer the hon. Member to the terms of the Bill. The complicated provisions contained in Part II are expressly designed to deal with the very point which the hon. Member has in mind.

Dr. Morgan: Tell us where they are.

Mr. Hay: If the hon. Member does not know he had better read the Bill and come back better instructed. It is clear, as the Government have explained, that private enterprise has an important and useful rôle to play in the maintenance and provision of houses for our people. I suggest, however, that if the Government intend to rely upon private owners to carry out these repairs, which are so vitally necessary to our older properties, those owners must be given adequate incentives to do that job.
We talk a great deal about providing incentives in many other spheres of our national life, but, although much is said against the landlord and the property owner, he is just as much entitled to an incentive as anyone else. This Bill gives only the very barest possible minimum incentive, and I hope that in Committee we shall be able to do something to adjust it to make it a little fairer. If we are placing a responsibility for the repair and maintenance of old houses on the shoulders of private landlords; if they are to be the instruments of the Government's policy in what they call "Operation Rescue," and that policy is to work, they should be given an adequate incentive to do so. In many respects the private owner will be given no adequate incentive. In many cases he will be under considerable handicaps and even hardships in carrying through the policy outlined in this Bill.
There are four major handicaps, some of which have been touched upon by my hon. Friends in earlier speeches. First, there is the requirement that the house must be put into good repair before the repairs increase can be obtained. In considering that, one must ask on self why it is that the house is not in good repair at the moment. Why is this Bill necessary? The answer is that the continuance, for nearly 40 years, of rent restriction has prevented money being available for carrying out the repairs.
Now, at last, we have a Government who are prepared to do something about this problem and not run away from it as the party opposite did when they were in power. I believe that the duty put upon the landlords to put their property into good repair to the very high standard laid down in the Bill will prove a very great handicap, particularly to many of the small owners who own, I believe, by far the largest proportion of this kind of property.
Then there is the other handicap that the landlord has to prove he has spent certain sums of money in the past. This is something I have not been able fully to understand. I still cannot quite see the reason why the owner should have to go to all the trouble of producing accounts to show that over either of these two arbitrary periods, whether it be one year or three, he has spent certain sums of money on repairs.
That is a point that we shall have to probe into a little more deeply in Committee, but I am not at the moment by any means convinced that it is necessary. We have been told that this is a test of the landlords' good faith, but I think the test of the landlord's good faith, speaking of them generically as a group, is that, for the most part, as my right hon. Friend and others have frequently said, houses have, in fact, been kept in reasonably good repair—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—despite the inadequate returns.
The third handicap is what my right hon. Friend calls the "stopper" which I personally—it is a matter of personal preference—should rather like to call the "ceiling." I cannot really think that it is absolutely necessary to have the ceiling placed as it is, at the figure of twice the gross rateable value, when we realise the enormous anomalies and difficulties one gets into where the actual valuations themselves are so out of touch with reality, having been fixed, perhaps, many years ago in entirely different circumstances and conditions from those at the present moment. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) dealt with that point very well.
The fourth handicap that the owner has got to surmount is the risk, the constant and almost interminable risk, that at any particular moment the tenant may suddenly obtain a certificate of disrepair, with the county court proceedings and their attendant costs, the engagement of the lawyers that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough dislikes so much, latter-day Jack Cade as he is. All these complications will make any owner say to himself, "Shall I really be better off if I do apply for this repairs increase?"
Those are the four big stumbling blocks, which, I hope, we shall do something to make a little jess difficult. But there is a fifth. I believe that if something is not done, not by the Minister, but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer next year, this difficulty will completely destroy all the Minister is trying to do. I refer, of course, to Income Tax, because unless these repairs increases are to be reasonably and fairly treated for tax purposes I think that there will be a serious risk of owners saying to themselves,

"Why should I worry? I get perhaps 2s. or 3s. a week extra for the repairs increase, of which the Revenue takes half. It is just not worth going to all the trouble of doing it." So I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue—I am sure he is—to have conversations with and to put pressure upon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to treat the repairs increase generously when he brings forward his Budget next year.
I want to turn to another topic, also connected with the repairs increase. It is, I think, a very important one to which insufficient attention has been paid during the debate so far, and it is the very problem of financing the initial repairs which must be done before the owner starts to qualify for the repairs increase. I think it is clear from the White Paper and from what the Minister said, and what the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier on, that they conceive that the amount of expense which will be necessary to put into repair a property of a type suitable to qualify for the repairs increase will not be very large, but I would, with respect, differ in many ways from that optimistic view.
The standard of repair which is laid down in the Bill is a very high one indeed. It is one which, in the hands of a sanitary inspector who was, shall we say, not particularly well disposed towards private ownership or private owners, might easily be the instrument which would effectively prevent the landlord from doing anything short of putting his house into the condition of Buckingham Palace. I really think if that standard is to be enforced rigorously it will knock the bottom completely out of this policy. I hope that when we go to Committee we can examine the definition in the Bill of what is good repair.
But there it is. A very considerable sum of money must be found by the owner before he can submit a claim for repairs increase. Where is he to get the money? It may be several hundreds of pounds, and I conceive that it could easily be as much. He may go to the banks. Perhaps the banks will be prepared to lend the money. I do not know. Or he could go to the building society to see if it is prepared to lend him a bit more on his mortgage. I do not know.
His third alternative, unless he happens to have a rich uncle, is to go to the local authority. Under Section 4 of the 1949 Act he can obtain a loan from the local authority for the very purpose of doing these repairs. The rate of interest charged fluctuates according to the length of time for which the loan is required. In fact, I believe the local authorities' rates are fairly generous compared with the ordinary commercial rates.
Assume that a large number of owners, anxious to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill, anxious to put their properties into good repair, wanting to find the money to finance the initial repairs before they can start drawing the money from the tenants, are going to the local authorities. Is my right hon. Friend going to address to the local authorities a request that they should be more generous in granting these loans than they have been in the past? Not only is it the question of a straightforward business transaction where one borrows money more or less commercially from the local authorities at a low rate of interest, but many other conditions are attached as well which are set out in Section 4 of the 1949 Act.
If the local authorities are to be generous then I believe what we shall have done will have been to have transferred from the private owners' shoulders and from the shoulders of the tenants a burden that, but for rent restriction, their rents would have enabled them to carry for the maintenance of the houses—we shall have transferred the necessary repairs costs at two removes to the Treasury, which means the taxpayers. Because the local authorities borrow from the Public Works Loan Board, and the Public Works Loan Board borrows from the Treasury, and the Treasury gets the money from the taxpayers. Unless we are very careful about this it may easily turn out to be what the Treasury, I think, calls in its technical parlance, an "open ended commitment" to finance the initial repairs of these millions of houses up and down the country.
This Bill is one which owes a certain amount of its parentage not only to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, not only to the Sanitary Inspectors' Associaton, but to the Government of Northern Ireland. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is not here

because, no doubt, he would be very interested in this. In 1951, the Government of Northern Ireland brought in an Act which has been on the Statute Book there ever since, and very much along the same lines as those of this Bill.
I have been making some inquiries about how that Act has been working in that country, and I am told that the initial result of the passing of that Act was an enormous demand on the part of tenants for certificates of disrepair. That has now slackened because very few owners are prepared to go through all the complicated procedure, which is the same as we have in this Bill, and all the trouble to obtain the repairs increase.
My informant in Northern Ireland, to whom I was speaking this morning—an estate agent in Belfast, who knows the problem very well—said that for all practical purposes that Act, which is so similar to the Bill before us, looks like breaking down and certainly is not doing the job expected of it. We must look at that in Committee and see whether there is any way in which we can make the terms upon which these repairs increases can be obtained a little less onerous to the owner and a little fairer to him, so enabling him to do the job which I am sure he can do.
We need not do it at great expense to the tenant. A great many things have been said about tenants; we are told that we must not irritate them or do anything which will in the slightest degree upset them. That has been the constant theme which we have had running throughout the debate. I am sure, first, that the vast majority of tenants of rent restricted property in this country will be quite happy to pay a few shillings more in rent if they can have their properties put in a decent condition. Secondly, I am equally sure that the vast majority of the tenants of rent restricted houses can afford the increase which is being asked of them.
Let me refer hon. Members to the Blue Book on National Income and Expenditure published last August, which shows that in 1952 this country spent no less than £850 million on alcoholic drinks, no less than £821 million on tobacco and no less than £187 million on entertainment. They spent only £736 million on rent, rates, light, heat and water charges. When people say that tenants are so


screwed down that they will have to flock in their thousands to the Assistance Board because they cannot pay the rent, I cannot help thinking that it would be less hypocritical to suggest that a little less money might find its way into the pockets of the football pool promoters and the purveyors of alcoholic drink, and a little more towards the repair of the nation's old houses which, as one hon. Member rightly said, form a great national asset.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I have listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Wembley—

Mr. Hay: I sit for Henley, not Wembley.

Mr. Janner: I am not at all surprised at the kind of speech which he made because clearly he is in sympathy with the policy of the Government in increasing the cost of living for people who are occupying these houses, just as they are in favour of an increase in the cost of living in so far as other commodities are concerned. I approach this matter possibly from an angle somewhat different from the approach of other hon. Members hitherto, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley). I did not think the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) was vitriolic in the slightest. I wonder what the hon. Member for Henley will feel by the time I have finished saying what I have to say on this subject. Possibly he will have to find some more superlative adjectives to add to his comments about my hon. Friend's speech.
This Bill has been presented to the House by the Government solely as a Measure to remedy the existing state of affairs which exists in regard to outstanding repairs to houses. In my view it is a sugar-coated poison pill, particularly as far as it deals with the security of the tenants' homes. It is a continuation of the Government's policy of rationing by the purse. Already, in consequence of the Government's actions, the cost of living has soared and the cost of staple foods is beyond the capacity of many of the lower income classes. Now there is to be a rationing of homes by the purse. That is what Part II of this Bill means.

I will not talk about Part I because that is merely a continuation of a policy which we introduced.

Mr. Hay: When?

Mr. Janner: In 1949. We introduced Measures which enabled slum clearance to take place. I intend to talk about the Rent Acts and what is happening to them in the Bill. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) raked up some historical facts and gave us the history of housing which has brought us into the present very serious situation. I will follow his example. I have been re-reading the book, "Landlords and Tenants," written by an old friend of mine, Dan Rider, who made such a valiant fight to keep the protection of a roof over the heads of the wives and children of the men fighting in the First World War. That was mainly the origin of the Rent Acts. It will make interesting reading for the Government and I hope the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will take up this book one of these days and read it.
I should like to quote one passage in it, and then I think hon. Members will understand what is the background of the Rent Acts which today we are about to attack very seriously in Part II of the Bill. This is what was written about one of the causes of the Rent Acts, and it concerns the First World War:
Chaplains with the troops at the Front started sending me distressing letters from the wives of the soldiers in their regiments containing notices to quit. They said the men were distracted and had come to them for advice and they asked me to look into the matter and to protect their wives and families. I wrote to the women to come and see me…. I found their petty landlords were adopting petty methods to frighten them out in order to get more rent from another tenant and in all these instances we taught the landlord a lesson.
He continues in that strain.
I think we are wasting a very considerable amount of sympathy on some of the landlords—I do not say all landlords, but a very substantial number of them, as I shall prove in a moment from a survey which I made in my own constituency. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) made a very sincere and moving speech in which he exposed the result of the Government's proposals, particularly in respect to Part II of the Bill. It is difficult for me to believe that the


Government have made their proposals without knowledge of the consequences to the tenant. The position is very serious.
In spite of the complexity of the Rent Acts, they managed to keep one of the most important institutions of life, the home, within reasonable limits of cost to the lower income group. I know there are anomalies, but the provisions contained in the Rent Acts have been of considerable service to millions of families in this country. Unhappily, they were difficult to understand, and the vastmajority—and I speak in definite and clear terms on this—of the tenants were completely unaware of the protective provisions which they contained. The hon. Member for Henley knows that very well. He is a solicitor and he knows that people came to him—or possibly he gave assistance in some of the advisory committees which were spread throughout the country—10 or 15 or 20 years after the passing of some of the Acts, who had been paying rents far in excess of any rent which they were obliged to pay under the Rent Acts. They had not the slightest idea of what their remedies were.
That prevailed throughout the country; millions of people were affected by it. Most of us know that that is so not only in respect of rents but also of repairs. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that when the average layman came along for advice he did not know what he had to do in order to obtain relief. He did not know where to go for this or that he had to make a copy of the sanitary notice or that he had to serve it on the landlord. All these things were unknown to him. What was the result. Many a house went into disrepair because the tenant did not know what to do about it. Unfortunately by the time he did get to know what to do he was placed in a position in which it was almost impossible to repair the house. That is the position generally with regard to the Rent Acts.
I say that it is practically impossible to calculate the number of tenants who were concerned in this matter. I personally dealt with hundreds of cases in which large sums were recovered from the landlords and I had not the slightest doubt that the hon. Member and many others in this House have done similarly whether they are lawyers or not. Much has been said about lawyers, but this is

one of the sides of the Rent Restriction Act which did not pay a lawyer as a rule to deal with. I think that any lawyer in this House will know very well that the lowest scale of charge was allowed in respect of the Rent Acts, unless a very special case could be made out, and it did not pay financially to go into the whole inquiry which was necessary; to find out what the rent was in 1914, what the rates were in 1914 and all the rest of it. I hope that when hon. Members talk about lawyers in future they will deal with us with mercy and perhaps with a little more justice.

Mr. Shurmer: How many cases has my hon. Friend taken for nothing?

Mr. Janner: I hope that my hon. Friend is making that statement to me. I should say many hundreds, and I have advised in many thousands of cases. As rent adviser to the Labour Party I should think that possibly I have advised in many hundreds or thousands of cases.

Mr. McColl: My hon. Friend and I were members of the same local Labour Party for many years, and I have never known a man more generous in giving help to poor people in the district than he was.

Mr. Janner: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I think that it should be made known to the House that we are not really as bad as we are painted on so many occasions. I have said that a vast sum of money was obtained by increases of rent. Not only was this so in respect of increases which had been legally placed upon the tenant by means of notices, but also in respect of increases which were charged far and above anything which was allowed under the Acts.
Let me come back to the increases which were allowed under the Acts. I cannot understand the attitude adopted by some people in this matter. Since the year 1920, 25 per cent. of the net rent controlled under the 1920–1938 Acts, was allowed to landlords in order to enable them to keep their houses in repair. I say that if they had used that 25 per cent.—and we know that the Parliamentary Secretary was rather cynical when I interrupted him the other day and he would not allow me to get in because I think he was a little afraid. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes, I am sure he was. He


was talking about some 469 furnished lettings applications heard by the rent tribunals in which -there had been the decision that the rent should be increased. He overlooked some 18,000 or 19,000 cases in which the rent was reduced. I think that the figure was even 20,000 to 30,000 or more.
When I talked in millions on this subject I meant millions. I think that millions of houses out of those which are under control under the 1920/1938 Rent Acts received the 25 per cent. increase without the owners doing a single thing in the way of repairs. I took the precaution, in case I was doubted on this, to have an inquiry made in my own constituency, in a district which was recently visited by the Parliamentary Secretary, in which many of the houses had been allowed go into almost complete decay. What was the result of that inquiry? A letter which I received from a person who conducted the inquiry as a member of a group said that he came up against the most appalling conditions.
Quite a number of people told us
he wrote
that they had to go into the centre of the town to use the public conveniences as the places which they had to use with so many others were not fit to use.
But there had been this 25 per cent. all through those years allowed for that purpose. In addition what did they find? They visited 124 houses, all rent-controlled under the old1920/1938 Acts, and in respect of 53 of them nothing had been done in repairs. In 49 cases the tenants had done repairs themselves which they were not supposed to do under the terms of the Act. I should like to quote the kind of position which they found there. Let us have this matter clear and see where we really stand. In one of the streets this is the kind of thing that happens to various houses:
No repairs done, 13 years' residence; no repairs done, six years' residence; no repairs done, 40 years' residence; no repairs done, 14 years' residence.
In cases where the landlord did do repairs this is what they found—11 years, odd slates; 46 years, a new ceiling. That is all that the landlord did in the whole of 46 years.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And the tenants decorated them themselves.

Mr. Janner: Now we are faced with this tremendous difficulty. Of course the houses are falling out of repair. Is this Bill the way to tackle a problem of this nature? I venture to suggest that it is not. I suggest that what should be done is for a proper inquiry to be made as this has not been done up to now as to how much has actually been received by the landlords in order to arrive at the position as to what repairs have to be done.
Who has cause for complaint? I think that is the next point which we have to examine. We hear from time to time about the poor one house person, and of course there are some, but they are exceptions taking the millions of houses into consideration. What has actually happened?
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to listen to this; I will do my best to be as quick as I can, but there is a tremendous lot to be said. Since 1920 until the present day what has happened, who has cause for complaint? If the person who actually owned the house in 1915 was receiving the same rent there might be some cause for complaint, but in fact he was given 25 percent. of the net rent as an increase in the years when that was ample to enable the repairs to be done, but he did not do them. That is number one.
Let us take No. 2, the person who has purchased a place and is now asking to be helped in carrying out the repairs. Did he not purchase with his eyes open, did he not know that the Rent Acts were in existence, that if he took the place as an investment he had to face up to the difficulties that existed and would exist in the future? Consequently, why is the coming to the rest of the community and asking them to subsidise something that he has bought?
Let me go one step further and consider the positionin regard to a person who came on to the scene by reason of a will or something of that nature. We are told of the poor widow in this regard. I quite agree it is very hard for her, but the will only comes into operation on the day of the death of the person who has made it, and if there are no assets—if there happens to be a liability—no one is


bound to take that liability. All these arguments are matters which require very careful investigation.
Here is a Bill which purports to be a Measure remedying the Rent Acts. Is there anything in it to help the tenant? Let me give a few illustrations of what might have been done by a Government which wanted to give security. By this Bill the Government are only removing security. Let me give an illustration of what might have been remedied. Today, when a tenant dies the widow of that tenant or a member of that family is entitled under the Rent Acts to retain possession of the place, but as soon as that widow dies that house becomes decontrolled in so far as protection is concerned and the landlord can sell it at whatever price he wishes. Landlords are selling such houses at enormous profit, everybody knows that.
We must face up to the situation which exists. Instead of the possibility being given to the family of the widow to have a roof over their heads, and it may very well be that a man dies today and his widow only a few days later, there is no security of tenancy for the families who are left.

Sir Frederick Messer: They are trespassers.

Mr. Janner: Yes, they are trespassers. Why is that sort of thing not dealt with by the Bill?
I think that the Government's policy is to do away with the Rent Acts, and that is a very serious thing. I have complained time and time again in the House, but the Parliamentary Secretary will not listen, that he shuts down and keeps on shutting down rent tribunals, that he takes away the offices, the places where people can get the information which they are entitled to have; and he is now introducing a Measure whereby he will ask the rent tribunals to do more than they have been doing in the past.
In this Bill there are a number of matters which underline perfectly clearly what a constituent wrote to me a few days ago. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) is not here. He spoke of the kind of letters he got when he had spoken on the wireless and said that they emphasised the importance of this Bill, that it was not

strong enough, that we must have more increases. Let me read a letter which came to me from my own constituency, and with this I propose to conclude:
Very many of us are perturbed by Mr. Macmillan's new rent scheme.
This is important, it deals with the very points with which we have been dealing.
May we hope that the facts below are considered by you.
By that he meant, by the Government; I considered them long ago and I am of the same opinion as my constituent.
Tens of thousands of tenants have lived 20 years or more in houses, the rent of which would show them to be a far better investment than 3½per cent. war loans, after deducting amounts spent on maintenance and repairs. My own tenancy of this house, for example.
It is 7, Browning Street, Leicester.
House cost owner £200, average rent 10s. 6d. plus rates £27 10s. clear. Total amount spent by landlord inclusive of some damage by bombs £30. After allowance of 4 per cent. this leaves a profit of no less than £320.
It would be safe to estimate that millions of houses and tenements would show tremendous profit on the investments. The cry about 'deterioration of property' is, I think, just a whining racket of profit hungry owners.
I am myself a part owner of a house let at 6s. 6d. a week in Yorkshire. After keeping it in good repair it shows a profit comparable to my 3 per cent. War Bonds.
I put it to you Sir, that it would be a vile injustice to raise the rents of this street, and especially streets like those around Belgrave Gate, Wharf Street area and elsewhere. There are many worse in Birmingham (Bristol Road district). Glasgow tenements too are horrible injustices at present rents. I have travelled a good deal, London to Aberdeen. East and West Coasts, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford….Before the increase in costs of maintenance, before the first (1914) war and certainly prior to 1939, the housing conditions in certain parts of London and the larger English and Scotch cities were a shame and a horror, ghastly in its terribleness. Owners could have been compelled to maintain their property in habitable condition, and rent tribunals could have investigated the original cost of house…."
There is more in this letter, but it follows on lines similar to those I have stated.
I say to the Government, withdraw this Bill. Think of something better. Think of something which will meet the case. Do not think merely of placing money into the hands, or into the pockets of many—I do not say all—but very many who will know how to dodge out


of any Act you pass and who will not do the repairs you are trying to make provision for.

8.37 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: At this late stage there is little I can usefully add to this debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) will not expect me to embark upon a discussion of the history of the Rent Acts, although perhaps on some future occasion he and I may have an opportunity of debating that interesting topic. One of the subjects we may be able to discuss then would be the number of houses in his constituency which have been repaired under this Bill when it becomes law.
I wish to make one or two observations on a subject about which little has been said, and that is the effect which this Bill is likely to have on the local authorities. I think that the local authorities will welcome this Bill and will be glad to play their part in this new campaign to end the scandal of the slums. But today local authorities are in an overburdened position financially. If they are to play their part in this great scheme it will be necessary to afford them the financial assistance they require.

Mr. Shurmer: Would not it be worth it?

Sir G. Hutchinson: I think it would.
Last night the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) said that this scheme would cost the London County Council £500,000. I think he might have recalled that under the Government which he supported the London County Council lost the Exchequer grants which amounted to a great deal more than that. But let that pass. There is no doubt that this Bill will place upon local authorities some financial burden.
I shall not refer to the terms of the Bill in the limited time available to me. I am not clear as to what provision is made for affording financial assistance to the local authorities in respect of their slum clearance proposals and the proposals for the acquisition and temporary reconditioning of properties which would eventually be redeveloped under slum clearance schemes. The financial proposals of the Bill will, I hope, be discussed by my

right hon. Friend with the local authorities, and their views ascertained and fully considered before the proposals of my right hon. Friend take their final form.
The Financial Resolution is on the Order Paper following the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say that the Resolution will not preclude future discussions with the local authorities. It was said, I think yesterday, that a meeting is to take place before very long. If that is so, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure us that this matter will be considered in conjunction with them and that no final decision will be taken until after their views have been taken fully into account.
Having said that, I make one brief observation upon the Bill itself. I assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) that there is no need for him to look anxious. I know what the right hon. Gentleman expects of me. The problem which confronted my right hon. Friend when he approached this matter was the problem of ensuring that adequate repairs would be done to the great number of rent-controlled houses.
I have listened to almost the whole of this debate. I do not think that anybody has claimed that the burden which the Bill will place upon tenants is an unreasonable one. Indeed, many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said frankly that if these houses are to be put in proper order it will be necessary for some contribution to be made by the tenants whether the houses remain in private ownership or whether they pass into the ownership of the local authorities.
The main criticism which has been made of the proposals of my right hon. Friend is that they will not be successful in achieving the purpose he has in mind. But nobody has contended that, if in fact my right hon. Friend's proposals produce the results which he hopes to get from them, the Bill will not have made a major contribution to a most urgent and serious problem. I should have thought that in those circumstances the House might have given the Measure a Second Reading. Then we can see in the future whether the expectations which are entertained of it are fulfilled.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: There was one point in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) with which I cordially agreed, and that was when he called attention to the undoubted fact that the financial burdens on local authorities in respect of housing operations of one sort and another are substantial and are growing, and that unless something is done about it they will grow to very large figures. Indeed, they have reached substantial figures already.
The question of the magnitude of the rate for housing purposes is a matter of increasing anxiety to the local authorities. In these circumstances, I do not apologise for commencing by making some references to the financial provisions of the Bill first in relation to the State and, secondly, in relation to local government. The Financial and Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill is a curious document. Its whole idea is to give Parliament, before it passes a Bill, even on Second Reading, a picture of the financial commitment into which the House is entering.
But this is an extraordinary document. Time after time it says that the Government cannot state what the financial commitments are. I know that this happens from time to time, but one would have thought that the Government might have given a rough indication, or, at any rate, an indication as to whether the commitments are substantial or not. Clearly, the potential transfer of the slums to local government with a grant and the ultimate demolition must involve substantial figures, and I should have thought that Parliament had a right to know.
The only figure that is mentioned in the Memorandum is the modest sum of £10.000 in respect of increased expenditure on rent tribunals. For a Government who pride themselves on their financial rectitude, strictness and propriety, all of which I do not follow from time to time, it is rather a curious Financial Memorandum and of a somewhat exceptional character.
Now I come to the local authority financial aspects of the matter. As I have said, the rates in respect of housing and related purposes are substantial and

are growing. We must all remember—and one sometimes has to remind municipal tenants who complain about burdens that are put upon them, especially when there are modest increases of local municipal rents for municipal properties—that the housing rate of the local authority has to be met by everybody. The municipal tenants are included, but so are the tenants of private owners and owner occupiers. Therefore, this question of housing finance in its local government aspects is bound to be increasingly discussed in Parliament and among the local authorities.
The higher interest rates which the Government imposed at a fairly early stage in their life have increased the local authority burden generally. I suppose that there was no department in which an added burden was more notice able in this single respect than the housing department of a local authority. So it must be remembered that the Government have pursued a policy which has added to a substantial degree to the financial burdens of local authority housing.
It is proposed under the Bill to lay upon the local authorities new functions, new burdens, and to impose these functions and burdens on the local authorities—or to empower them in these respects, at any rate, to do it—notwithstanding that it is a further addition to their financial burdens to lay these burdens on the local authorities under distinctly less advantageous financial terms than has been the case for a long time past. Further burdens are to be imposed on the local authorities, and with a proportion of State contribution substantially less than has been the case for quite a considerable time, that seems to be a bit rough on the local authorities.
Sometimes I wonder—perhaps the Minister can tell us—whether any Member of the Cabinet has ever served on a local authority. I do not recall any who did, but there may be one or two. It is curious, however, that these things should be either set aside or overlooked, with the result that precedents which have been built up as to the proportion of financial aid from the State to local government in respect of housing seem either to have been forgotten or wilfully and coldly set aside by the Government.
Let us see what are the arguments in regard to the finances of the Bill from


the local government point of view. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there have been consultations with his Ministry, and there have been some consultations between the financial officers of the local authority associations and the London County Council and officers of his Department. It has been pointed out by the local authority representatives that all the postwar housing legislation has provided for sharing on a three to one basis, which means 75 per cent. by the State and 25 per cent. by the local authorities. Even before the war, the basis was two to one, but now the Minister proposes a basis in respect of loan charges on this slum operation—or near-slum operation—not of three to one, not of two to one, but of 50–50; that is to say, of one to one.
From the local authority point of view, this is a very serious retrogression which will cause the local authorities considerable anxiety, and we must remember that it is in respect of a new function, a function which I shall come to describe later, tout a function of taking over slum property from the slum landlords because they themselves do not know what to do with it. That is the first point in respect of the finances of the Bill—that it breaks away from the recent three to one basis, that it breaks away from the pre-war two to one, and that it is now one to one, or 50–50. I do not know whether it is worse than it has ever been before, but certainly it is worse than it has been for quite a long time.
The next point is that it is understood that the average figure of the cost of bringing slum property into a reasonable state of repair—the average basic figure which the Minister has taken—is £140, and it is said that it is based upon the Birmingham experience. As has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), the work has already cost Birmingham £180 or £190. My hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) confirms that, and I am much obliged to him. Therefore, if that is the tendency, and the figure is confirmed by my hon. Friend, £200 would not be an unreasonable figure to take, and it does make a material difference as between £140 and £200.
There is a further point. The Bill is based upon the doctrine that the loan period should be 15 years, that being based upon the estimated average life of the dwelling, but is it by any means certain that the average life of a partly reconditioned slum will be 15 years? The next question is: Ought it to be 15 years? I am very doubtful whether it ought, and if it is not so, and if it does not last for 15 years, as is quite likely, but lasts for only 10 years, the point comes, when the 10-year period is up, when the loan charges go on for another five years without any revenue from the property at all. I submit that that also is an unreasonable proposal.
It is claimed that there should be improved terms. It is true that the Minister originally offered, instead of the figure £2 5s. under paragraph (b) of the relevant Clause, £1 13s., but there has been an improvement in that respect which it is fair to acknowledge. The local authorities argue that that is not enough and that it ought to be more, and they make a strong case to that effect.
A curious feature of the Money Resolution is that the contribution laid down in this respect is £2 5s.
or such other sum as the Minister of Housing and Local Government may determine.
I could follow that the Minister might determine a lesser figure than £2 5s., but will he tell us whether it enables him to make the figure bigger? I do not know. Could it be made £125 instead of £2 5s.? I do not think that is likely, but could it be done? If so, this Resolution makes a complete fool of Parliamentary control of finance. I do not recall any Financial Resolution which lays down that the Minister can fix "such other sum" as he likes.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We could do the same in Committee.

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend has a point there. If this Financial Resolution is a complete delegation of powers to a Minister, without Parliamentary specific or maximum authority, it is a matter for argument whether it is Parliament which is the financial authority. My hon. Friend is on a point whether the Committee upstairs could not increase the amount. A Committee of the House of Commons ought to have some degree of authority as well as a Minister of the Crown.
The local authorities claim that the Government's share should be at least two-thirds of the acquisition costs and the deficit on improving and maintaining slum properties. Secondly, they claim that the estimated cost of making a slum dwelling tolerably habitable should be assessed at £200 rather than £140; and, thirdly, that the amortisation period should be 10 years rather than 15 years. If these points were conceded, where should we arrive?
On this basis it would appear that the unit maintenance grant would be approximately £12 1s. a dwelling or part of a dwelling, on the following calculation: debt charges on £200 at 3½ per cent. for 10 years, £23 17s. 6d.;repairs and maintenance £15, making a total of £38 17s. 6d., less the estimated rent £20 16s., leaving a deficit of £18 1s. 6d., which, with a 66⅔ per cent. grant, would bring a grant of £12 1s. Those figures take a bit of upsetting. I think they are sound figures, which are advanced by responsible financial officers of local authorities, and they are in the possession of the right hon. Gentleman's Department.
I have only one other thing to say about local authority finance, and that is to reinforce the appeal made by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North, although I am not sure whether it was made in specific terms. I think the Minister said that he should not bind himself to the particular terms of the Financial Resolution. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Financial Resolution will not be moved, for a reason which I hope he will regard as reasonable. There is to be a meeting between the Minister, the local authority associations and the London County Council on 10th December to discuss all the matters I have raised—and others as well—and various aspects of the Bill.
It is true that on 23rd October the Minister informed the local authorities that he would hold to the 50–50 basis. I think it is a little bit tall to meet the local authorities for the purpose of discussing matters, and then to say that on that very important element there is nothing to discuss. However, I am glad to know that the Minister has promised to meet the local authorities again on 10th December. If this House were to pass the Financial Resolution tonight, it would

make a mockery of that meeting of 10th December, unless, of course, it is the Minister's intention to scrap it later and bring another one forward; though I do not think that that is an easy thing for a responsible Minister to do, and I am sure that the Treasury would not like it.
I hope, therefore, in order that the local authorities may be able to argue their case on 10th December, that the Minister will be able to announce that he will not bother with the Financial Resolution tonight. As a matter of fact, he does not need it, at any rate until the Committee stage of the Bill, and, strictly speaking, he does not need it until we reach the Clauses which authorise the expenditure of Parliamentary funds.
I very much hope that these negotiations with the local authorities will be free and not tied up in advance, and that the Minister will be so good as to agree that the Financial Resolution shall not be moved tonight, because, otherwise, a situation would arise which would be unfair and inimical to good relations between the great State Departments and the local authorities, which, irrespective of party politics, I am always sorry to see happen. Of course, I think that a little bit of fun between local authorities and Government Departments from time to time is one of the pleasant ways of British life, and it is something which I myself have very much enjoyed in the past from both sides of the table. I hope that the Minister will be able to give that assurance.
I now come to the provision of the Bill in connection with slums. This is a technical Bill, and I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on having got through yesterday with reasonable clarity, because it is not an easy Bill to explain. These Bills never are. I hope that the Minister of Works enjoyed himself this afternoon in dealing with what was mainly his Departmental business, namely, the question of supplies. We were very glad to hear him.
The Bill aims at an acceleration either of the clearance of slums or a departure whereby local authorities clean them up, recondition them, and so on. That is the dual purpose of the Bill in respect of slums—direct clearance, reconditioning, and maintenance for a time. For my own part, I am not thoroughly convinced of the wisdom of local authority acquisition


and patching up of the slums. I admit that, according to reports, the municipality of Birmingham, which is a great municipality, has done some interesting and valuable work in that respect, and the next time I go there I hope to be able to see what Birmingham has done.

Mr. Shurmer: Come around my way.

Mr. Morrison: I have great respect for the work of the municipality of Birmingham, and I am glad that it has, politically, come on with great energy recently. But I do not think that my friends from Birmingham would disagree with me when I say that, if it were possible physically to clear a slum out of existence at a reasonably early date, even if some years ahead, it would be preferable to patching them up for a period which may turn out to be longer than we anticipated at the time we were doing it.
I sat as a member of a Cabinet Committee on one occasion to deal with the question of building prefabricated houses on open spaces, a matter which was liable to be controversial, but the war was on and it was done more or less peacefully. We all talked then about the 10 years that those prefabricated houses would last, but I said at the time, "We are deceiving ourselves. They may last longer than that, and we must realise that to interfere with these open spaces for a period longer than 10 years is a serious business." And here we are, in this period, giving the Minister powers to make that 10 years, or something like it, longer.
I would sooner demolish the slum, sweep it right away as quickly as it is empty. If it is left empty long, someone will come in and it will be empty no longer and, it is most important, when a slum is empty of human beings, to pull it down, smash it up, and clear the site. I would honestly prefer to do it in that way rather than have this other business of the local authority taking over slum property. Why do I say that? It may be thought that I am a very funny sort of Socialist when I am offered, by the Conservatives, the socialisation of the slums, but I question, and they might question themselves, what they are doing in bringing forward a policy of socialisation of the slums—but they are.
What will happen when the local authority takes them over? First of all, it has to carry these added financial burdens, which are to be substantial. Secondly, many people, decent, good citizens, will be asking the local authority, before it knows where it is, "Why are you owning and managing filthy, abominable property of this sort?" There will be probably a lot of respectable Conservatives asking Labour local authorities why they are going on with slum property, and, it may be, some Labour people in Conservative local areas doing the same the other way round.
I am not saying that we are not decent people, or that the other side are not decent people, within their limits. I mean non-political people, who will be arguing that this is a scandalous state of affairs, and the poor local authority will be pushed around to get on with this financial, administrative and organising job with extraordinary speed—pushed to do it and to spend a lot of money upon that property. And when it has done so, the local authority will have to say to the tenants, some of whom are attracted by a low rent, and are prepared to put up with a slum—some, although not all, "We have spent all this money on the house. The grant from the Ministry is 50–50"—if it still remains there, which I hope it will not—"Now we must put up your rent."
So, having been knocked about politically for not putting the slums right quickly enough, possibly by political opponents, when it does put the slums, right and has to increase the rents, as it will undoubtedly have to do, it will be knocked about by the inhabitants of the slums in that way as well. I would, therefore, sooner wipe the slums out of existence as soon as possible, rather than that the local authority should become a slum landlord, which is not a natural job for a local authority. I confess that I do not like it. It will cause the complications and troubles to which I have referred.
We want to know whether the local authorities can acquire only the actual slum property, because in one speech that we heard from the benches opposite this afternoon—I think it was by the Minister or Works—it was suggested that it was natural that the local authorities should


take the slums, but that it was not natural for the local authorities to take anything that was worth having. On the other side of the water, in the Waterloo area, the London County Council has acquired property which was largely slum property. But, at the same time, it acquired shops and industrial hereditaments. It sought to treat people in occupation fairly according to the extent of their occupation. It also eased the burden. The Minister of Works ought not to be so simple in this matter of socialisation that he says that it is right that the local authority should carry the burdens, but that if there is any money to be made and if there is any financial relief, that is for private interests.
I am not surprised. I know why he said it. The whole story of the record of this Government is, "If there is any money to be made, let private enterprise make it; and if there is any money to be lost, socialise it." They are as good Socialists as we are when the taxpayers' or ratepayers' money is to be lost. It is when there is anything to be made that they are not Socialists. This Government hates the word "monopoly," though quite a number of its supporters spend a lot of their life building up private monopolies.
What are the Government doing now—this Government which is so busy in denouncing monopolies in the public service? It is not only socialising the slums; it is trying to manufacture a municipal slum monopoly, and it is not even giving it adequate sporsorship. So this Government, which uses the word "monopoly" ignorantly in respect of television, transport and iron and steel, is now fastening, so far as it can, a slum monopoly on local government because its own friends in the property owning world do not know what to do with the slums, and say, "Let them go to the local authorities."
Whether, under the provisions of the Bill, the repairs will be done by private enterprise I am not at all sure. If private enterprise does not do the repairs because it either cannot or will not, then is that property to become slumproperty and will that be socialised and added to the municipal slum monopoly? It seems to me to be a bit tall if that is the case. I do not like the onus of proof being on the tenant. I think it ought to be on the

landlord, and these matters ought to be dealt with by rent tribunals and not by county courts.
I say this in conclusion, because it is time for the right hon. Gentleman to wind up the debate. He has much to answer, and he thinks he ought to have three-quarters of an hour. Certainly, those of us on this side of the House are anxious to see the end of the slums—and if I detect some development of conscience among Conservatives I welcome it. The slums have been denounced by the Labour Party and Socialists ever since we have existed. So have the dreary streets which are now inflicting increasing mileages on our great cities.
I cannot and do not forget the slums, which are a disgrace to our country. Nobody was more proud than I when, at the London County Council, with the aid of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) and others, we were able to begin abolishing the slums with big slum clearance programmes. If it had not been for the war we should have broken the back of the problem by now. Other local authorities in the United Kingdom were doing something, and some Conservatives and Liberals were also engaged in the work.
But do not forget that we were the pioneers and the fighters. I can remember the day, young as I am, when Tory candidates for local authorities advised slum dwellers to vote against the Labour Party because we should disturb them in their slums—and many people did so. We want to get rid of the slums; we want to get rid of ugliness, and we want our country to be beautiful, clean and attractive. It is our sincere conviction that this Bill is not the way to do it. We believe that it is ineffective in itself and unfair to local authorities in its provisions. Therefore, with a clear conscience and with complete conviction, when the Question is put we propose to vote against its Second Reading.

9.16 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I very much regret, as we all do, the reason why the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) has not been able to be here tonight to wind up the debate for the Opposition. I hope that he will make a very speedy recovery, and I should like to have that message sent to


him from all his friends on both sides of the House.
Nevertheless, he has provided a very adequate substitute, in the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), more especially because of the right hon. Member's long experience in local government and, therefore, the very valuable help that he has been able to give us on certain aspects of this problem. I noticed that in his speech he stuck rather rigidly to certain parts of the Bill and avoided or evaded the presentation of the great alternative plan.
The Government have every reason to be satisfied and grateful for the generous reception, from the Press and the public as a whole, of the ideas which have been put forward in the White Paper and which are now embodied in the Bill. Of course, there have been criticisms both inside and outside the House. It is the traditional function of an Opposition to oppose. Nevertheless, I am personally grateful for the very valuable criticisms and suggestions which have been made in the course of the debate by Members on both sides of the House, especially by Members who have considerable personal experience of these problems. I want to assure them that from whatever quarter those suggestions or criticisms may have come, we shall study them most carefully between now and the opening of the Committee stage of the Bill.
It would be foolish of us to claim that all the details of those complicated proposals—and they are complicated—are immutable or sacrosanct. The function of the Committee stage is, surely, to mould the Bill in accordance with its main principles. On Second Reading it is the general design of the Bill which comes either for support or rejection.
The first part of our proposals is intended to provide that, in the case of houses already in a reasonably good condition, or in quite a good condition, the income available to spend upon current repairs should be sufficient to prevent them from falling into disrepair. That is the purpose of part one of the scheme.
The scheme that we have adopted, based upon the statutory deduction, is, we frankly admit, of a somewhat complicated character. It cannot be presented or argued with the simplicity of a percentage increase, but a percentage

increase, at any rate in England and Wales, in the special conditions prevailing in England and Wales, with the control, the decontrol, the recontrol, and the great variety of rents of houses of the same rateable value and the same amenities, in my view, would have been inequitable and unjust in every point of view.
In this debate, although there has been general recognition that either in one scheme or the other, whether houses remain in private ownership or are taken over into public ownership, the rents would have to be raised, I do not think anyone has suggested that we ought to substitute for a more specialised and accurate scheme the method of percentage increase in England and Wales. Some months ago when the Parliamentary timetable, I think, made people think we should be unable to introduce this Bill—last summer—I was interested to read in the "Daily Herald" that:
The Minister of Housing and Local Government is under pressure to grant a percentage increase of 50 per cent.
The article went on to say:
He is prepared to go some way at least to meet this demand, and to meet it without making hard and fast rules about spending the extra rent on repairs.
At any rate, that particular prophecy has proved to be untrue.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases I have investigated up in the North of England a permitted increase might well have to be 50 per cent., or in some cases slightly over?

Mr. Macmillan: "A percentage increase without any conditions"—that is what was said about the Bill. I think, perhaps, one of the considerations that has caused a little confusion among the critics is that I refused to fall into this particular trap. However, it was some comfort to me to see that the day on which this prophecy was published was 1st April. Of course it would have been easy to have devised a simpler scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), who made a very valuable speech, has pointed that out very clearly, but it would not have been a fair scheme either in respect of the principles of any increase or in respect of safeguards.
On the rent proposals there are only three questions to answer. They are partly Committee points, but they are vital. Are they fair to the tenant? Are they fair to the landlord? And will they get the job done? That is the test. I think there has been very little weight in the attack, broadly speaking, in this House so far as the tenants are concerned. The argument has not been pressed powerfully in Parliament. Of course, it will be reserved for the street and the doorstep. Nor do I think that the tenants will object to paying this modest increase so long as they get the repairs done at the same time. The operation of the "stopper" or "ceiling" principle prevents the total rent of any house rising beyond the rents which other houses in the same street already command, and the condition that the repairs increase must be spent on repairs ensures that the tenant will get value for his money.

Mr. Shurmer: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to interrupt him. I did not have the chance to get in the debate because he wanted an extra quarter of an hour. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks the landlords will do the repairs now with a small increase, then why did they allow the majority of the houses to get into bad disrepair during the inter-war years when they had the 25 per cent. increase of rent to pay for them, and plenty of labour and materials available?

Mr. Macmillan: I was dealing with the tenant's point of view, and now I shall come to the landlord's point of view.

Mr. Shurmer: That is the tenant's point of view.

Mr. Macmillan: I shall deal with it, if I may, in the order of my speech. Of course we considered the proposal that the landlord should obtain a certificate of good repair. That was made by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon). We rejected it on two grounds: first, in many of these cases there will be no question of litigation or dispute and, indeed, in the majority, mutual agreement will be reached between landlord and tenant. The second reason is that it would place an intolerable burden upon

the certifying local authority. As the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) said, the authorities are already short of surveyors and sanitary inspectors. The hon. Member is no longer in his place—

Mr. Blenkinsop: He is.

Mr. Macmillan: I am sorry; the hon. Member was on the Front Bench, but during the debate he has demoted himself. I beg his pardon. There was already some difficulty, he said, in getting enough surveyors and sanitary inspectors, but of course if we were to throw all that extra work upon them in addition, it would be an impossible demand, and I am sure it is wiser not to do so.
Then it is said that the declaration of the landlord as to the amount of money he has spent—that is, the statement that he has spent actual sums of money—ought to be decided, in case of dispute, not by the court but by the local authority or a rent tribunal. But surely this is not a matter of opinion or of judgment but a matter of fact. I do not think the great majority of people will willingly and knowingly sign their name to the document we propose if to do so would be an absolutely false declaration. I do not think the majority will do so. Very few people do such things. It is quite a risky thing to do, and it will get them into a good deal of trouble if they are found out. In any event, such a question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) pointed out in his admirable speech, is a suitable question for determination by the courts. I was glad to hear such tributes paid to our county courts by hon. Members below the Gangway who have such experience of them—[Laughter.]—of their work.
It is said that once the landlords have obtained the repairs increase they might then allow the house to go out of repair. If they do that they are taking a very big risk. They take a double risk now if, having got the repairs increase by satisfying the two conditions, they then let the house drop out of repair. First of all, I think the tenant may come down upon them, and if he does obtain his certificate they will lose, not only the new repairs increase, but the 40 per cent. increase they were granted on the rent in 1920. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They will lose both and go back to the 1914 control. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They risk the


new repairs increase and 25 per cent. of the 40 per cent., at any rate; that is quite a risk.
Moreover, they may attract the attention of the local authorities, stimulated by my Department, who will begin to apply some of their new powers as to dilapidation and all the rest. Finally, under the circumstances, the landlord risks the house in the end being taken from him with no payment at all except that of the site value. Although we will consider in Committee any suggestions, particularly the point about 14 days, which is a Committee point and to which we will give sympathetic consideration, I think we have taken the right course in framing these conditions.
One point has been raised which has always been in my mind and on which I should like to say a few words. It was raised by the hon. Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and Lincoln. It is, how will this fall upon tenants who are in difficult circumstances? I must frankly admit that such a proposal as I am making now, although perhaps right to make, would have been one which I would have hesitated to make without some special provisions in pre-war circumstances. It would have forced a number of people to make use of the Poor Law system which, under its old form, was thoroughly distasteful to the most honourable and deserving people in our whole community.
But I have made inquiries into the working of the new National Assistance system, which we all claim, and, I think, we believe, to be free of the stigma of the old Poor Law. That is its purpose. We believe it to be the proper system—at least I believe it to be so—by which the effect of any measures which may economically be correct over the whole field may be corrected over some part of that field.
I find that a very large number of those now drawing National Assistance are already receiving assistance either for the whole of their rent or for some part of their rent. I think that the figures are 1¼ million out of 1¾million. Therefore, those who are receiving the whole of their present rent in full will obviously receive the repairs increase, should it apply, and

those who are receiving it in part may also qualify because there will be a heavier burden upon them. By this means, I am informed, the very great majority, if not all, would in fact have the repairs—I admit it frankly—paid on their behalf, by whom? By all of us. In my view that is right. They will be paid by the nation.
It will have this advantage, that their houses will be kept in good repair and they have the right to see that their houses are kept in good repair. If they have no resources from which they can pay economically, why is it wrong then that the whole community should pay on their behalf? I think that it is an extraordinary doctrine if we are to force them to live in bad conditions.
The hon. Gentleman who introduced this argument pointed out that this was already happening on a considerable scale as rents rose. But what rents have gone up? Why, only the local authority rents. It is the local authority rents which have gone up, although I have no doubt that some increased assistance has been given to those who happen to be in local authority houses the rents of which have gone up.
Now I come to the landlords. There is a good deal of division of opinion about the landlords. When the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale talks about them he does so with tears in his eyes. He says, "The poor landlords—we are not going to give them all they deserve." The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) could not stand for that, and he said that he did not agree at all with the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the landlord. Hon. Members have been either pro-landlord or anti-landlord. Some say that this is intended to put more money into the landlord's pocket. I have no doubt that in particular quarters, where they think their argument will be successful, they will continue to use it.
There are certain points to which I want to refer. There is particularly the case, referred to by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe), of rural cottages and some houses in the older industrial towns. It is suggested that the rents are low and, therefore, though the percentage increases which I propose might be quite high, the increase in terms of money would be very small. It is said that not only are the rents low but


also the gross values are low. Therefore, repair increases based on the statutory deduction would be correspondingly small and the operation of the ceiling would be correspondingly restricted.
Of course, it must not be forgotten that the effect of lower assessment is to some extent modified by the fact that the statutory repair deduction is proportionately higher for houses of low gross value. There is a scale. For instance, if the gross value is £12 the repairs deduction would be £5, whereas if the value was £9 the repairs deduction would be £4, rather higher in proportion. That is to some extent an alleviation, but I have not represented this plan as an attempt to iron out all the great varieties and anomalies of the rent system. I do not think that that could be undertaken, and I really do not see any way of meeting this precise difficulty at the moment, although I will think further about it, except to say that I think we have to consider all the way through this sort of proposal the balance between the logical and the mathematical argument and the human approach.
Logically and mathematically, in the case of a very low rent, say of 2s. 6d. per week, it is quite true that the increase which will be made will be very small. On the other hand, people think partly in terms of what they are already paying and one has to try to balance what is a human response to what people think is a very high percentage with what we hope will be enough to make a contribution towards doing this work. Today the cottages on many estates are somehow kept in good repair because it is regarded as right and good by the landlord to do so. This will be some contribution towards easing that burden.
The next question from the landlord's point of view came from my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), who was followed by others, as to whether in establishing his claim to the repairs increase the landlord could go back over a period of only three years. Why not go back five years? I was led to go back for a short period because in the case of the owners of many well-managed estates and properties it is the practice to have a regular cycle of repairs. Not to have gone back at all would have been very hard on perhaps the best of all landlords.
On the other hand, one must strike a balance somewhere. If one were to go back too far we should, I feel, be in danger of endangering the principle which I think is so important, and which, I am sure, the whole country regards as important, the principle that the repairs increase and the actual doing of the repairs should be closely linked. While I will look at the point again, I do not want to endanger the whole principle that these two things, the repairs increase and the repairs, should go together and be seen to go together.
I am more concerned with the fear that the repairs increase taken as a whole may not be of sufficient size or may be hedged in by too many conditions to be of any real use to the landlord. There are two versions of this argument; I do not wish to overstate it. There is that put forward, and I must take serious note of it, by the National Federation of Property Owners. This is what I would call the argument of insufficient incentive to do the job.
The other version is put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale—he is not here, but he has explained to me why he is not here—which might be roughly described as the theory of the "mouldy turnip." I do not know whether the National Federation of Property Owners have yet elected the right hon. Gentleman to their committee, but what strange bedfellows these really are.
Of course it is impossible to dogmatise, but I would emphasise again what is the category and the class of houses which we are trying to deal with by this repairs increase. It is the class of house that can be dealt with by an increase for current repairs. It is not intended to deal with houses which will require several hundreds of pounds to be spent upon them. Obviously no increase in the rent which can be proposed in whoever's possession those houses may be, whether in private hands or whether in the hands of housing associations or local authorities, could be an economic rent if one means by economic rent rent sufficient to pay for the structural repairs of houses which have fallen into such a bad state that they need £300 or £400 to be expended on them.
I wish to go back to the estimate which has been made to the best of their ability by those who advise us. There are seven


and a half million houses in Great Britain owned by landlords and let to tenants as houses and flats. Probably a million of these are no good anyway, and will have to be torn down. The problem is to do it quickly, when we have people living in them, as quickly as the right hon. Gentleman seems to think we can do it. But we have to place the people somewhere. I would say that there are five million or so houses which are in a reasonably good condition and which this system will stop from falling into bad repair. They can be maintained as an asset, and as good houses, and not become a burden to the nation.
There are perhaps another million where the condition is somewhere in between. Under our proposals some of them will have to go down and I hope that landlords, under the pressure of the local authority, will be made to put some houses into a condition which at least is fit for human habitation. The landlord may think that is a good thing to do, and this will be on; step towards encouraging landlords to put them into a sufficiently good condition to earn the repairs increase. Other properties will have to come down, and there will be applied to them the scheme and the machinery which we have devised to try to deal with them by the only means by which we can deal with them. If it cannot be done at all on an economic basis, it can be done only by the community in one form or another, the local authority being assisted by the central Government.
Finally it is asked, why should the owner do current repairs at all, even on houses in moderately good, or in good condition, if he has to use all the extra rent for extra repairs? Why should he do this if he cannot add to his free income which he may spend on himself? The first answer is that many landlords do this already even with an insufficient rent. They do it when they can afford to do so, not out of the income of the house but out of other resources which they may have at their command—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Well, we all know that that is true. If the income of the house can be made sufficient the landlords will have two motives, first, because it is a good thing to do, and secondly, because it is preserving and maintaining an asset which can have a

substantial value, instead of allowing it to decay and, as I said before, to reach a position in which it may eventually be taken from them with no payment at all.
I wish to say a word about taxation, a question raised by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). Like most other people, I find it as difficult to understand the theory of taxation as to conform to the practice of paying it. But I should say that roughly this is the position regarding Income Tax. It has been said that the repairs increase will be subject to Income Tax. That is perfectly true, and it is in line with the taxation policy in general. But it should not be forgotten that landlords can, and ought, to make a maintenance claim. In his claim which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is for a five-year period, the landlord has this advantage, that he is able to average out his expenditure over the five years, so that a particularly heavy expenditure in one year, where there would not be enough income to make the full claim, can be spread over the income for five years.
Therefore, indubitably, the five-year maintenance system is an advantage to the landlord. He already receives an automatic statutory deduction for tax purposes. But I will consult with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see if it is necessary or possible to devise any additional means of meeting this problem.
This leads me to another doubt—expressed by a number of hon. Members, particularly by the hon. Members for Oldham, East and Henley—about where the landlord is to get the money. He has of course to get the money to do the repairs, and he may have to wait some time to get the repayments, especially on his maintenance claim. In many cases the landlords of large estates will have no difficulty at all, and it is indeed remarkable how much money is spent on repairs today.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), who made such an excellent contribution last night, pointed out that the smaller landlord would be faced with spending perhaps £18 or £20 and would have difficulty in obtaining it. Apart from the ordinary sources such as the banks—and we hope that the banks will be generous—there is machinery provided in the 1949 Act to which I want to


call public attention once more. Under it the local authorities have power, and in my view they have the duty, to advance money to individual landlords for the purpose of paying for repairs. I think that is a great benefit that that Act did, and I should like to thank the right hon. Gentlemen opposite for having made that provision.
The interest they pay is the current rate of interest which, for short-term loans, is now just under 3 per cent. I hope that the local authorities will really make an effort under the new scheme, if it comes into being, to provide the necessary money especially to the small landlords. After all, it costs them nothing and it may save them a great deal, because every house that is kept in good repair in their area saves them the duty of dealing with it under my scheme or under the still bigger alternative of having to take it over at some time themselves. Therefore, it costs them nothing, and nowadays virtue which costs one nothing gives one an agreeable opportunity for feeling good.
Nobody has seriously argued that the great mass of houses can be kept in proper condition without some addition to the rent where the rent is already insufficient for the purpose. After all, the local authorities have no particular urge to increase their rents. As was pointed out yesterday, they are in closer touch with the electors than we are, because they have to face them more frequently. Every day we see that the rents of local authority houses are going up. Sometimes these are Conservative-controlled and sometimes they are Labour-controlled. It is pure hypocrisy to talk about the rich harvest for the landlords. In many cases the local authorities have already had to make larger increases in rent than would be allowed to private landlords under the Bill.
I believe, therefore, that this part of our proposal—the part dealing with the repairs increase—is fair. I believe that it is fair to the tenant and to the landlord and that it will work. I believe that it can make a contribution towards the maintenance of this vast number of houses, three-quarters of the whole we have to deal with, and keep them in decent repair at no public expense.
Now I come to certain points about the second part of our scheme which have not been opposed because they are

common between us. I refer to conversions and improvements. The public imagination has been struck by some of the experiments which have been made. Public opinion is ripe for a new impulse in this direction. I have been informed that, as a result of increased publicity even in the last few weeks, many more applications are already coming in for grants. I hope that this is only the beginning of a great drive.
As the Parliamentary Secretary said, success depends partly on suitable legislation. We are trying to make amendments. I am not accusing those responsible for the old Act, but there are one or two Amendments which we think will be useful. Success also depends partly on sensible administration and partly on broad public response. So far as legislation is concerned, we have put in some amendments which we think will be valuable and useful. So far as the general structure is concerned, I do not think that I can alter that.
I know some people feel that it ought to be obligatory upon the local authorities to make the grant, but I could not accept that because I feel that where public money is at stake and where the authority is in a sense the trustee, both for its own money and for Exchequer money, there must be proper conditions. Some authorities have rejected this scheme altogether; they have not used their discretion, which is what the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale meant them to do, but have rejected it altogether. Curiously enough, this is not solely, so my researches prove, on ideological grounds.
This action has been taken by councils of different political complexions. So far as Labour councils are concerned, I hope they will rest upon the sound doctrine which has been given to them by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and so far as Conservative councils are concerned, I hope they will take the advice that we give them. Therefore, I hope they will exercise their discretion in the way in which it was intended as to whether it is a good scheme and ought to be put into effect, and that that should be the only criterion.
There are, on the other hand, some administrative changes which we intend to introduce. The Minister's conditions have sometimes been rather too inflexible


and rather a barrier to progress, and we hope to make these more reasonable and more flexible. Therefore, in one way or another, I believe that with good publicity, by getting public opinion behind the scheme, by getting the authorities to use the powers which were given to them in the previous Parliament, by strengthening those powers and by improving the administration, we can now make a great forward move. This is one of the most effective measures for using a large number of houses which are structurally sound but out of date in their amenities and in their design for modern conditions, but which can play a most useful part for many years to come as part of our whole housing reserve.
There are some things I must say about the slums before I conclude.

Mr. H. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with local authority finance?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes.
I do not think I need say a great deal about the scheme itself. It has been very well received. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Surely, there can be no objection in anybody's mind to going forward with a new attempt to open up slum clearance of a big scale. As for the rather novel proposals—that is, the deferred demolition—while I took note of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I am not impressed by it, nor are the local authorities.
It is true that when I asked the local authorities to meet and I put this proposal before them, I said, "You all know that there are slum areas which cannot be cleared in five years or even in 10 years. In some of the great cities you know that it will be a longer job. What is the alternative? You can either take them and, at least, do something for the people who are there waiting, or you can take the high line and say, 'We could not be owners of bad property.' But if you do that you would be like the Levite, you would be like the man who passed by and left the poor man in the ditch. Why should you be ashamed to do something for them while they are waiting? Why should be it wrong to do some little work to help them during this period that they have to wait?"
The Birmingham experiment has given us a very good example of what can be done, and I am proud to acknowledge that it is upon what they have done in that scheme that I am trying to base my future policy. As regards slum clearance as a whole, the Association of Municipal Corporations has called a two-day conference next week—this is not as regard finance—to launch a whole new crusade of slum clearance.

Mr. Bevan: They have already discussed that.

Mr. Macmillan: No. This is the two days' conference of representatives from every local authority. It was called, not by me, but by them. That was done on Mr. Greenwood's first Bill.
As regards the finance side, I have already discussed the financial provisions of Part I of the Bill at a full meeting of the local authority representatives, and further discussions have taken place with my officials. It was convenient to everybody to put the Financial Resolution on the Paper, but since I am to meet them personally on 10th December for a final review, we shall not ask the House to proceed with the Financial Resolution until after then. I hope that will meet the general wish.
There are only one or two things on which I want to end. It has been suggested that, instead of acting in the way we are trying to act, which I think is practical and realistic, we ought to have promoted a Measure which would progressively, bit by bit, hand over the whole of some 7 million houses and land them on the local authorities. I am going to place administrative burdens on the local authorities under Part I of this Bill. I do not mean financially, but in resources of manpower and trained men like surveyors and architects and so on, and if, in addition, they are to take over 6 or 7 million houses, then I say that is neither practical nor realistic.
I leave out altogether the sum of money which that might cost, and, after all, even £2,000 million or £3,000 million is not to be sneezed at. From the point of view of the people, they are more likely to get the houses dealt with if everybody plays their proper role—landlord and tenant, if we use the local authorities in the only way in which the local authorities can


work. The people should not be taken in by these academic proposals. My proposals are realistic, whereas the alternative is all right in a debating society or a resolution, but is really not attuned to the needs of the day.
I cannot help thinking that the trouble is that the party opposite do not like our housing story. In the first year, we were being taunted as to when we would complete our target. In the second year, when it was clear that the date was getting imminent, some alternative had to be found. In the Housing Summary which is in the Vote Office tonight, it will be seen that, in the month of October, 30,000 houses were built in Great Britain—a record for any month since the war. In the second year of our Administration, that is to say, from 1st

November, 1952, to 31st October, 1953, the number of houses built was 300,001. [Laughter.] I mean 301,000. So we have already reached that target. Now, the right hon. Gentleman opposite says that these new plans are unworkable, and indeed asks me to prove that they will work. We have proved that what we said before has worked, and so I say to him that if, perhaps, he waits two years, with the help of all our colleagues in the Government, he will see that the job will be done. In this Bill, we are asking Parliament to give us the necessary tools, and then we shall put our hearts into finishing the job.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 309; Noes, 282.

Division No. 10.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Colegate, W. A.
Grimond, J.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Alport, C. J. M.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harden, J. R. E.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Crouch, R. F.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harrison, Col. J. H, (Eye)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Baker, P. A. D.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hay, John


Baldwin, A. E.
Davidson, Viscountess
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Banks, Col. C.
Deedes, W. F.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Barber, Anthony
Digby, S. Wingfield
Heath, Edward


Barlow, Sir John
Dodds-Parker. A. D
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Baxter, A. B.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Donner, Sir P. W.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
H"nchingbrooke, Viscount


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Drayson, G. B.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hollis, M. C.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Duthie, W. S
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M
Hope, Lord John


Birch, Nigel
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Bishop, F. P.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Black, C. W.
Erroll, F. J.
Horobin, I. M.


Boothby, Sir R. J. G
Fell, A.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Finlay, Graeme
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fisher, Nigel
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Braine, B. R.
Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Bromley-Devonport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Hurd, A. R.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fort, R.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Foster, John
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Bullard, D. G.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Burden, F. F. A.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Jennings, R.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Gammans, L. D.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Campbell, Sir David
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Carr, Robert
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W


Cary, Sir Robert
Glover, D.
Kaberry, D.


Channon, H.
Godber, J. B.
Kerr, H. W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Gough, C. F. H.
Lambton, Viscount


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Gower, H R
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Cole, Norman
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.




Leather, E. H. C.




Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Nutting, Anthony
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Oakshott, H. D.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Odey, G. W.
Stevens, G. P.


Lindsay, Martin
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Llewellyn, D. T.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Storey, S.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Osborne, C.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Page, R. G.
Studholme, H. G.


Longden, Gilbert
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Summers, G. S.


Low, A. R. W.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


McAdden, S. J.
Pitman, I. J.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


McCallum, Major D.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Powell, J. Enoch
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Tilney, John


McKibbin, A. J.
Profumo, J. D.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Turner, H. F. L.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Rayner, Brig. R.
Turton, R. H


Maclean, Fitzroy
Redmayne, M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Renton, D. L. M.
Vosper, D. F.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Wade, D. W.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Robertson, Sir David
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. Marylebone)


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Robson-Brown, W.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Marples, A. E.
Roper, Sir Harold
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Maude, Angus
Russell, R. S.
Watkinson, H. A.


Maudling, R.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wellwood, W.


Medlicott, Brig. F
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Mellor, Sir John
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Molson, A. H. E.
Scott, R. Donald
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Moore, Sir Thomas
Shepherd, William
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wills, G.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Wood, Hon. R.


Neave, Airey
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
York, C.


Nicholls, Harmar
Snadden, W. McN.



Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Soames, Capt. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Spearman, A. C. M.
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Speir, R. M.
Sir Cedric Drewe.


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)



Nugent, G. R. H.






NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Donnelly, D. L.


Adams, Richard
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Driberg, T. E. N


Albu, A. H.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Burke, W. A
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Burton, Miss F. E.
Edelman, M.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. (Brighouse)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Callaghan, L. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Carmichael, J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Awbery, S. S.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Champion, A. J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Baird, J.
Chapman, W. D
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Balfour, A.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Fernyhough, E.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Coldrick, W.
Fienburgh, W.


Bartley, P.
Collick, P. H.
Finch, H. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Bence, C. R.
Cove, W. G.
Follick, M.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Foot, M. M.


Benson, G.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Forman, J. C.


Beswick, F.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Blackburn, F.
Daines, P.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Blenkinsop, A.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Gibson, C. W.


Boardman, H.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Glanville, James


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Gooch, E. G.


Bowles, F. G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Deer, G.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Brockway, A. F.
Delargy, H. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Dodds, N. N.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.




Grey, C. F.







Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Manuel, A. C.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Hale, Leslie
Mason, Roy
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mayhew, C. P
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mellish, R. J.
Snow, J. W.


Hamilton, W. W.
Messer, Sir F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hannan, W.
Mikardo, Ian
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hardy, E. A.
Mitchison, G. R.
Sparks, J. A.


Hargreaves, A.
Monslow, W.
Steele, T.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Moody, A. S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hastings, S.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hayman, F. H.
Morley, R.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Herbison, Miss M.
Mort, D. L.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moyle, A.
Swingler, S. T.


Hobson, C. R.
Mulley, F. W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Holman, P.
Murray, J. D.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Nally, W.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Houghton, Douglas
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hoy, J. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
O'Brien, T.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oldfield, W. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, G. H.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, M.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oswald, T.
Thornton, E.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Padley, W. E.
Thurtle, Ernest


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paget, R. T.
Timmons, J.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Tomney, F.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Janner, B.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pannell, Charles
Usborne, H. C.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Pargiter, G. A.
Viant, S. P.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Parker, J.
Wallace, H. W.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Paton, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Peart, T. F.
Watkins, T E.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Popplewell, E.
Weitzman, D


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Porter, G.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)
West, D. G.


Keenan, W.
Proctor, W. T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Kenyon, C.
Pryde, D. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Key, Rt. Hon C. W.
Pursey, Comdr. H.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


King, Dr. H. M.
Rankin, John
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Kinley, J.
Reeves, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wigg, George


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wilcock, Group Capt C. A. B.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rhodes, H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Richards, R.
Willey, F. T.


Lewis, Arthur
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, David (Neath)


Lindgren, G. S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Logan, D. G.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


MacColl, J. E.
Ross, William
Williams, W. R (Droylsden)


McGhee, H. G.
Royle, C.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


McGovern, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


McInnes, J,
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


McLeavy, F.
Short, E. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Shurmer, P. L E.
Wyatt, W. L.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Yates, V. F.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)



Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Skeffington, A. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Mann, Mrs. Jean

Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

The House divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 308.

Division No. 11.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Baird, J.
Blackburn, F.


Adams, Richard
Balfour, A.
Blenkinsop, A.


Albu, A. H.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Blyton, W. R.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bartley, P.
Boardman, H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Bence, C. R.
Bowles, F. G


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth


Attlee, Rt Hon. C. R
Benson, G.
Brockway, A F.


Awbery, S. S.
Beswick, F.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.




Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Burke, W. A.
Janner, B.
Rhodes, H.


Burton, Milt F. E.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T
Richards, R.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Carmichael, J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Champion, A. J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Ross, William


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Royle, C.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Coldrick, W.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Collick, P. H.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Short, E. W.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Keenan, W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Cove, W. G.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crosland, C. A. R.
King, Dr. H. M.
Simmons, C J. (Brierley Hill)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Kinley, J.
Skeffington, A. M.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Daines, P.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfold, E.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Arthur
Snow, J. W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lindgren, G. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Deer, G.
Logan, D. G.
Sparkes, J. A.


Delargy, H. J.
MacColl, J. E.
Steele, T.


Dodds, N. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Donnelly, D. L.
McGovern, J.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McInnes, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, F.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Edelman, M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Swingler, S. T.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mann, Mrs Jean
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Fernyhough, E.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fienburgh, W.
Mason, Roy
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Finch, H. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mellish, R. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Follick, M.
Messer, Sir F.
Thornton, E.


Foot, M. M.
Mikardo, Ian
Thurtle, Ernest


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Timmons, J.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, W.
Tomney, F.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Moody, A. S.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morley, R.
Usborne, H. C.


Gibson, C. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Viant, S. P.


Glanville, James
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wallace, H. W.


Gooch, E. G.
Mort, D. L.
Warbey, W. N.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, A.
Watkins, T. E.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mulley, F. W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Murray, J. D.
Weitzman, D.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon D. R.
Nally, W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Grey, C. F.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
West, D. G.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
O'Brien, T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Hale, Leslie
Oldfield, W. H.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Orbach, M.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Oswald, T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hannan, W.
Padley, W. E.
Wigg, George


Hardy, E. A.
Paget, R. T.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hargreaves, A.
Paling, Rt. Hon W. (Dearne Valley)
Wilkins, W. A.


Harrison, J (Nottingham, E.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Willey, F. T.


Hastings, S.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hayman, F. H.
Pannell, Charles
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Parker, J.
Williams, Rt. Hn. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Peart, T. F.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hobson, C. R.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Holman, P.
Popplewell, E.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Porter, G.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Houghton, Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hoy, J. H.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Proctor, W. T.
Yates, V. F.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pryde, D. J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pursey, Cmdr. H



Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reeves, J.
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)




Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)









NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Fletcher, Sir Waller (Bury)
Longden, Gilbert


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Low, A. R. W.


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Fort, R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Arbuthnot, John
Foster, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McAdden, S. J.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McCallum, Major D.


Baker, P. A. D.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Baldwin, A. E.
Gammans, L. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Banks, Col. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
McKibbin, A. J.


Barber, Anthony
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Barlow, Sir John
Glover, D.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Baxter, A. B.
Godber, J. B.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Gough, C. F. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gower, H. R.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Grimond, J.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Birch, Nigel
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, A. E.


Bishop, F. P.
Harden, J. R. E.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Black, C. W.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maude, Angus


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maudling, R.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Mellor, Sir John


Braine, B. R.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Molson, A. H. E.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hay, John
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Moore, Sir Thomas


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Heald, Sir Lionel
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Heath, Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Buchan Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Neave, Airey


Bul"ard, D. G.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicholls, Harmar


Bul"us, Wing Commander E. E.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Campbell, Sir David
Hollis, M. C.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Carr, Robert
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nutting, Anthony


Cary, Sir Robert
Hope, Lord John
Oakshott, H. D.


Channon, H.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Odey, G. W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Horobin, I. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Clarke, Brig Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Cole, Norman
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Colegate, W. A.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Osborne, C.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hudson, W R. A. (Hull, N.)
Page, R. G.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hurd, A. R.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Crouch, R. F.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Jennings, R.
Pitman, I. J.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip℄Northwood)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Powell, J. Enoch


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Deedes, W. F.
Kaberry, D.
Profumo, J. D.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Kerr, H. W.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lambton, Viscount
Redmayne, M.


Donner, Sir P. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Renton, D. L. M.


Drayson, G. B.
Leather, E. H. C.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robertson, Sir David


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Legh, Hon Peter (Petersfield)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Duthie, W. S.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Robson-Brown, W.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Lindsay, Martin
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Roper, Sir Harold


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Erroll, F. J.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Russell, R. S.


Fell, A.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)



Finlay, Graeme









Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Storey, S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Summers, G. S.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Scott, R. Donald
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Shepherd, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Watkinson, H. A.


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Webbe, Sir H (London &amp; Westminster)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Wellwood, W.


Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Snadden, W. McN.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Soames, Capt. C,
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Spearman, A. C. M.
Tilney, John
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Speir, R. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon
Wills, G.


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Turner, H. F. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Turton, R. H.
Wood, Hon, R.


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Tweedsmuir, Lady
York, C.


Stevens, G. P.
Vane, W. M. F.



Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Vosper, D. F.
Sir Cedric Drewe and


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wade, D. W.
Mr. Studholme.


Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — IRON AND STEEL (COMPENSATION) REGULATIONS

10.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I beg to move,
That the Draft Iron and Steel (Compensation to Officers and Servants) (No. 1) Regulations, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.
These Regulations relate to nationalisation. The No. 2 Regulations, which we shall come to in the second Motion, relate to denationalisation. The No. 1 Regulations provide for compensation to be paid by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency to employees of iron and steel companies suffering loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of the nationalisation of iron and steel under the 1949 Act, but the Regulations themselves are made under the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, Section 24 (1, a) of which places an obligation on my right hon. Friend to make Regulations exactly for this purpose.
The House will remember that the 1949 Act, passed by the previous Government, gave the Minister of Supply power, under Section 41, to make such Regulations, but, in fact, no Regulations were made under that Act either by the previous Government or by my right hon. Friend. There was a simple reason for this. No one applied for any compensation, and those who know about these things were of opinion that no one would have any reason to apply for compensation. That

is still the case, and it is, in our opinion, most unlikely that any claim for compensation will be made under these Regulations.
Nevertheless, the 1953 Act rightly made it obligatory to make such Regulations, and I am sure the House will want to have a short account of the effect of these Regulations before it gives its approval to them. Since the Regulations relate to nationalisation we thought it right to follow the pattern of compensation on nationalisation worked out by the previous Government. That seemed to us to be fair to all concerned. The basic provisions of these Regulations are, therefore, the same as the basic provisions in the compensation Regulations made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite on the nationalisation of electricity, gas and road haulage, and in some other cases such as those connected with the National Health Service and the National Insurance Act.
The most important of these basic provisions, which were discussed by the House at considerable length in the case of the electricity Regulations, and on a number of other occasions, are these. The first of the basic provisions is a qualifying period of not less than eight years' continuous service in the industry. No one who has not that eight years' service may receive anything under the Regulations.
Second, there is no entitlement under the Regulations to compensation in consequence of any disturbance that happens more than 10 years after the date of transfer to public ownership, that is, after 15th February, 1961. Third, claims must be made within two years of the loss. Fourth,


a claimant with the eight years' service qualification is entitled to receive interim compensation for up to 13 weeks as soon as he makes the claim, while his claim for substantive compensation is being examined. That is an advance payment on account.
Fifth, if he fulfils the conditions for long-term compensation he is awarded compensation on the basis of his emoluments and length of service up to a maximum amount of two-thirds of his emoluments immediately before the loss. Sixth, if a claimant cannot establish a right to long-term compensation he will receive short-term compensation covering a total period of between 13 and 26 weeks, depending upon his age and length of service. Seventh, a claimant in respect of pension rights is credited with up to 10 additional years' service, depending on his age, and the amount of his pension, when payable, is increased accordingly. Eighth, compensation may be commuted, but only to a limited amount. Ninth, there is a right of appeal to a tribunal: in this case a tribunal appointed by the Minister of Labour.
On all these basic points there is no difference between these Regulations and the Regulations for nationalised industries. There are, however, two points of detail on which there are differences to which I should draw the attention of hon. Members. Both these differences relate to the weekly deductions which, where applicable, are to be made in calculating the amount of compensation. Both have been discussed and agreed with the Trades Union Congress.
The first difference is that where unemployment, injury or sickness benefit has to be taken into account, the deduction will be at the rate applicable to a person without dependants instead of, as in the previous Regulations, a deduction of two-thirds of the actual benefit claimable. This provision will be found in Regulation 8 (1, a), Regulation 13 (d) and Regulation 14, and avoids penalising claimants with dependants.
The second difference is that in calculating the interim compensation only two-thirds of any current earnings will be taken into account, whereas in previous Regulations on nationalisation the full earnings were taken into account. This encourages the claimants to take up em-

ployment even at a lower rate of pay, and benefits them if they do.
I said, at the outset, that we did not expect any claims to be made under these Regulations. We hope, indeed, that this will be so and that our consideration of them tonight will prove to have been academic. But I can assure the House that in drawing them up, and in our consultations with the Trades Union Congress, we have proceeded exactly as if they were known to be of real importance. I hope that hon. Members will now be able to give them their approval.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I have no doubt that the House will readily give its approval to these Regulations. I am aware that where there have been possible matters of dispute discussions have taken place on a most amicable basis between the Ministry and the trade unions concerned. I do not think there is any difference between them, and on this occasion there is no difference between the Government and the Opposition. I think the Regulations may be allowed to pass without further discussion.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I was interested in the concluding remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, that the provisions of the Regulations would be purely academic and that there would be no claimants. May we agree that that shows the extent to which there was disturbance among the people to whom, we were told, there would be done this, that and the other under nationalisation? I am glad there is evidence tonight that the disturbances and displacements to which reference was made have also proved to be academic.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Low: I beg to move,
That the Draft Iron and Steel (Compensation to Officers and Servants) (No. 2) Regulations, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.
These Regulations provide for the payment of compensation to employees of the iron and steel companies affected by the 1953 Act and to former employees of the Iron and Steel Corporation. We believe and hope that our consideration of these Regulations will be as academic as that given to the No. 1 Regulations.

Mr. J. Jones: In other words, no disturbance at all?

Mr. Low: In compiling these Regulations we decided to follow as exactly as possible the line of the only other Compensation Regulations so far made on denationalisation, namely, the British Transport Commission (Compensation to Employees) Regulations, 1953. Since the House discussed those Regulations and approved them on 27th July I will not go into very great detail.
Some of the provisions of these denationalisation compensation Regulations are the same as those in the Regulations we have just been discussing, but there are some important new provisions.
Instead of interim compensation and substantive compensation, whether long-term or short-term, all subject to an eight-year qualification, we now provide, in these Regulations, for resettlement compensation, and for long-term compensation, each with a different qualifying period. The only service qualification necessary for resettlement compensation payable for loss of employment is either the holding of a permanent appointment, whether in the industry or the Corporation, or three years' employment in the industry and the Corporation.
The amount of compensation is calculated in the same way as the short-term compensation in the other Regulations we have just discussed. But whereas, under the old rule, the period of extension above 13 weeks for those of 45 years of age or older depended on the actual service performed after that age, we have provided, as did my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, that the extension period should depend solely on age. The reason for this is that it is obviously harder for an older man to get resettled. In this way, whereas a man of 45 or under could get resettlement payments for 13 weeks, a man of 58 or over could draw such payments for 26 weeks. That provision was welcomed by the House in July in the case of transport and it is hoped that hon. Members will welcome the change by which the resettlement payment is not confined only to those with eight years' service.
There is also an important change in the conditions under which the long-term compensation will be granted. Under the nationalisation Regulations it was necessary for a claimant to prove he had a

right or expectation, under customary practice, to the payment of compensation in the event of discharge or reduction in earnings. In addition, he had to fulfil the qualification of eight years' service in the industry. Instead, as was done in the case of road haulage this year, we have provided the one qualification of eight years' service with one company or its predecessor in title. The House accepted this principle in connection with road haulage in July, and it is not necessary to remind hon. Members of the arguments. For claimants the change is an improvement.
My right hon. Friend has had consultations with the Trade Union Congress, as he did in the case of the No. 1 Regulations and there is no disagreement between him and them. I am afraid, however, that representatives of those former members of the Iron and Steel Corporation who are now employed with the Agency have not been willing to accept the Regulations as drafted. I had two very full meetings with them myself, and they say that special terms ought to be included to make them eligible for long-term compensation from which the eight-year qualification excludes them. But no such payment was given to the staff side of the Road Haulage Executive, nor was any special treatment given to the staff of the Electricity Commission, whose service was brought to an end in 1948. The same principles were applied to them as were applied to the staffs working in their industries. So, with iron and steel, I see no reason to draw up special qualifications and conditions for the staff of the Corporation giving them what amounts to preferential treatment not given to workpeople and staff of the companies in the industry.
We have, however—and this is important—provided, in effect, that the former members of the Corporation's staff who have transferred to the Agency may make a claim for resettlement when they leave the Agency. Without such a provision they would be barred from a claim had it been made later than 13 weeks after the date of these Regulations. They qualify for resettlement compensation, therefore, if they had a permanent appointment. They would have qualified for nothing at all under Regulations following the nationalisation pattern. But we hope very much that no former member of the Corporation's staff will need


to make a claim at all. Certainly we hope that the 15—for that is the number—who have joined the Iron and Steel Board have been resettled. Of the other 45—there was a total of 60 at the time of the appointed day—one has already found new employment and 44 are now employees of the Agency.
I understand that the Agency will, when any member of the staff leaves, do all it can to assist him to find comparable alternative employment. Secondly, I understand that each member of the staff will qualify, under a scheme which the Agency will be introducing, for a cash payment on a stated date, or for a deferred annuity calculated by reference to service and salary. For this purpose, service with the Corporation will be added to service with the Agency.
My right hon. Friend has on several occasions paid his tribute to the work done by members of the Corporation and its staff, and he has been particularly anxious that all of them should be treated with full fairness after the demise of the Corporation. My right hon. Friend and I have, naturally, been personally interested in the provision made for these men and I hope that the House will agree that these arrangements of the Agency, which are made with the full approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, coupled with the resettlement compensation which is included in these Regulations, are fair provision for the staff. I commend the Regulations to the House.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Parliamentary Secretary has explained this second set of Regulations with his usual clarity and charm. We always enjoy hearing him speak. We are also very pleased to know that he, and, I understand, the Minister, too, have had discussions with the various parties concerned and have arrived at compromise agreements affecting all those who work in the various iron and steel companies; and that the T.U.C. are satisfied, broadly, that these Regulations are fair and have no desire to put forward, at this late stage, any views in opposition to these Regulations. We on this side of the House are also satisfied, as far as workers in the iron and steel companies are affected by the Regulations.
Having said that, I want to put before the House and the Minister what appears

to be an injustice which has been meted out to these people who have been, up to recently, officers of the Iron and Steel Corporation. I warned the Parliamentary Secretary that I would be raising this matter and he, on his part, has been good enough to devote a part of his speech to this problem. I think he realises that it is a problem; and what is quite certain is that, whether the people have suffered an injustice or not, they feel strongly that they have. Indeed, they have a strong sense of grievance that they have not been fairly treated; and, as shortly as I can, I will tell the House why.
The Act passed earlier this year makes these provisions about compensation to members of the Iron and Steel Corporation staff. It says that:
The Minister shall by regulation require the payment by the Agency, in such cases, and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations…
This, I admit, gives him an opportunity of not making any Regulations of compensation to various classes. One class about which I want to say a word is
persons who are officers or servants of the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great Britain immediately before the appointed day, and suffer loss of employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of any provision of this Act.
As this was specifically stated in the Act, people in the Corporation believed, as I think every hon. Member in the House believed, that the Minister would make Regulations giving some compensation to members of the staff in respect of loss, or diminution, of emoluments or pension rights. But, in fact, the Minister has not done so. Various reasons have been given by the Parliamentary Secretary, but I do not think that they are sound.
One reason he gives is that he is following the precedent set in the Road Haulage Executive and the Electricity Commission when their staffs were abolished. But I suggest that there is a considerable difference, and the precedent, not a good one. The staff of the Road Haulage Executive consisted mainly of people drawn from the road haulage industry; people who had existing pension rights which were maintained while they were members of the Executive's staff.
Similarly the staff of the Electricity Commission had mostly, I understand, pension rights inherited from their


previous employment, whereas the staff of the Iron and Steel Corporation was composed of people not drawn from the industry at all. They were people recruited to the Corporation by means of advertisement and they came from all walks of life; none, I believe, came from the iron and steel industry.
Therefore, I suggest that there is not a close connection between the Road Haulage Executive or the Electricity Commission and the staff of the Iron and Steel Corporation for the sound reason—for such I believe it to be—that those in the two former inherited pension rights while those with whom we are concerned to night had none.
The second reason why it is said that there is no provision for these people is that the Agency will do its best to find other jobs for people when they leave it. That is all very well; so it may, but it is one thing to rely on another job being found by the Agency—which might fail—and quite another to have it laid down by Parliament that there shall be provision for loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights. Therefore, I do not think that that argument is sound.
What do we find? When we look at Part III of the Regulations, dealing with long-term compensation for loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights, we find that the Regulations which follow apply only to people who are working in iron and steel companies and not to members of the staff of the Iron and Steel Corporation. But, the Parliamentary Secretary says, they are, nevertheless, to get some compensation, called resettlement compensation, when they lose their jobs. That resettlement compensation will last for probably 13 weeks. It may be adequate, or it may not be, but it certainly puts these people in a separate category and does not entitle them, as they thought they would be entitled from reading the Act, to the same sort of compensation as people who are working in the iron and steel companies.
The argument is also put forward—and I agree that there is force in it; that it is unlikely that these people are to be employed by the Agency for eight years, and long-term compensation is

only payable to people working in the industry after working there for eight years. That is perfectly true. But who can tell? We may have the disastrous situation in which a Conservative Government remains in office for eight years. We hope not, but it might happen.
It might also happen—indeed, it is likely if the present Government remains in office—that the Agency will continue in existence for eight years because it will not be able to get rid of all its iron and steel assets during that period. If that should happen, these people will not have the same rights of compensation as those working in the iron and steel companies, and they have a measure of grievance about that. But their case is much stronger in regard to no arrangements having been made for their loss of pension rights.
Again, I come back to Section 24 of the Act, where it is clearly stated that members of the Iron and Steel Corporation would receive compensation in respect of their pension rights which they might forfeit—

Mr. Low: They have no pension rights. The right hon. Gentleman did not approve the pension scheme.

Mr. Strauss: I shall come to that in a moment.
Under the Act they are entitled to expect compensation in respect of pension rights which they will forfeit as a result of the passing of the denationalising Act. They joined the Corporation on the justifiable expectation that a pension scheme would be set up, because the advertisement which was issued inviting people to join the staff of the Corporation definitely said that a pension scheme was to be established.
As soon as possible, steps were taken to consider what would be the most appropriate pension scheme. But before it could be drawn up, the political situation changed, and it was considered that it would be unwise to go on with it any further in view of the possibility of denationalisation. But definitely, the people joined the Corporation in the belief that there was to be a pension scheme. I can quote the advertisement if the hon. Gentleman wants me to, but I do not want to waste the time of the House.
Because no pension scheme was set up, the Corporation set aside a sum equal to 10 per cent. of the salary of each of the people concerned so as to form the nucleus of a pension scheme when one was established. There was no doubt, therefore, about the proper expectation that there was to be a pension scheme, or about the intention of the Corporation to set one up as quickly as possible. But, under these Regulations, the people will not get their pension rights which they were led to expect they would enjoy, or the compensation in respect of those pensions which they were led to expect they would receive under the Act.
It appears to me that there has been an injustice there. We are told that the staff concerned are to get something out of the pension fund which has been set up. There is to be a return to them of the 10 per cent. contributions paid in by the Corporation. But that is nothing to do with pension rights. Therefore, it seems to me that they are being cheated out of compensation rights which they were entitled to expect to be paid to them in some form of compensation. The fact that this money is to be paid either in cash or in some form of insurance which will give them a little money when they are 65 years old does not correspond to the pension rights which they were entitled to expect. They were sure that they were to have these rights, because they were told so when they applied for the jobs.
Reading this Act, they are entitled to say that they were to get proper compensation for loss of pension rights because the Corporation was to end. These people have a justifiable grievance. The Government can argue that they have only been working there for two years, and that they have a job with the Agency—44 of them. That job can last for a long time, or for a short time. Whether these people have, or have not, a reasonable job as a result of denationalisation has nothing to do with the matter. The fact is that by the Act passed by this House, and put forward by the Government, everyone was led to believe that these people would have a pension. I therefore ask the Government to look at this matter again.
I suggest that the Government are technically entitled not to give compensation if it does not want to; but in view of the wording of this Act, I say it is not

playing fair with the House—and it has certainly caused considerable perturbation and annoyance among the staff concerned—to find that they are not to get compensation for these pension rights. I hope that the Minister will look at this matter again and perhaps bring in some amending legislation. The grievance, it is true, concerns fewer than 60, but this House has always been as jealous of the rights of small numbers as of large numbers. Because we are satisfied with the effect of these Regulations upon the great majority working in the industry is no reason why we should not ask the Government to look at the problem of the small number who feel, with justice I believe, that they have been unfairly treated.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. P. B. Lucas: I only wish to raise one matter briefly. This relates to Part III of the Regulations, which deals with loss of employment, emoluments, and pension rights. I find myself in the somewhat remarkable situation of being in some degree in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss). He quoted Section 24 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953. I shall not weary the House with that again; but it appears to me that the Regulations we are considering have been so framed as to exclude from the provisions of Part III any reference to the officers or servants of the former Corporation.
I fully appreciate and welcome the assurances which my hon. Friend has given tonight, but on the face of these Regulations it would seem that in the event of the Treasury dissolving the Agency, as provided under Section 25 of the Act, these people could—I do not say they would—suffer any or all of the losses referred to in Section 24, without any guarantee of compensation.
This is a state of affairs which I had hoped might not arise, having due regard to the provisions of Section 24 (1, c) of the Act, but in spite of the assurances which have been given tonight my interpretation of these Regulations makes it questionable whether there are sufficient safeguards for those who were members of the staff of the former Iron and Steel Corporation. On the basis of their permanent employment with the Corporation, I was under the impression that they


had acquired certain pension rights, but, so far as I can gather, under this proposal, should the Agency be dissolved in the future there is no certainty that comparable pension rights would, in fact, become operative.
I know that my hon. Friend has been most courteous, in meeting representatives of the Agency's staff association and hearing their views, and I am sure that they are grateful to him for the time that he has given to them. Nevertheless, they do retain the impression that, whereas, under these Regulations, the industry and the employees of the companies concerned have been adequately provided for, the treatment which they are receiving is less favourable. This may seem a small matter, but it is certainly causing them some concern. I hope, therefore, that when my right hon. Friend replies to this short debate he will elaborate a little more, and clarify a little further, the position of this small but deserving group of men.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I want to intervene only very briefly in reference to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. As the story of steel unfolds itself we really get the facts. Whereas we were told, ad nauseam, that there would be bureacracy going mad and "jobs for the boys" when this industry was nationalised, it now appears that it was successfully run by a staff with a maximum of 60 and a reasonable minimum of 44. That is a very interesting fact. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), like myself, wants to get to bed, if I properly assess the look of him.
There is the question of what I consider to be unfairness to these people who had a genuine right to expect compensation when this Corporation was set up. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) dealt with that. I want to refer to the individual who, it is suggested, might leave the employment of the Agency. There are some who might, and it is questionable whether they are getting a square deal. But what about the fellow who does not leave but gets the sack? What happens to him? Perhaps the Minister can tell us.
Within this Agency, there is bound to arise a clash of opinions. At the moment, I am looking at the Financial Secretary to

the Treasury. I might, as a practical, technical fellow, be sitting on the Agency with him, and he and I might have a clash of opinion. He knows all about finance, and I know nothing about it, but I know how to make steel and what should be done with certain works. I want to know what happens to an individual who has a clash of opinion with Treasury officials and is given notice to leave. Will he get a job so easily, and get the amount of money which it is suggested might come to him? What about the man in the industry who, as a result of the technical inefficiency of the Agency, finds himself out of work?
I cast my mind back for a moment to Barrow Works, probably one of the least economic in the possession of the Agency, and will be for more than eight years if there is no slump. But if there is a slight recession in steel in this country and in the world, that is the sort of place that will find itself in debt very quickly. And what about the men who, in the employment of the Agency, have not been technically efficiently looked after through there not being technically efficient persons in charge?
I think we are at the stage in the steel industry where people own who cannot control and people control who do not own. Only part of the shares have been sold, and the remaining part has been left in the control of people who only own a part or percentage of the shares. What can the Minister tell us about individuals such as the man who loses his job as a result of recession, as a result of inefficiency, or as a result of being under the control of financiers rather than the steel makers?

11.6 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I shall be very brief. What these people were promised in the subsection of the Act which was devoted specially to them and did not cover the company service was compensation for suffering loss of employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rates. Now there are two headings of compensation. One is resettlement compensation for loss of employment, which does apply to them, and which appears to be compensation rather like the widow's benefit under the National Insurance Act. It is small benefit. But when we come to the actual language in this subsection of the Act, which is repeated in these Regulations,


the very words about loss or diminution of emoluments and pension rights, we then find that they are specifically omitted from it. When we turn to see what are the pension rates and look at the definition, we find it is exceedingly wide. It is not merely a formulated scheme. It means an arrangement "whether by virtue of any statute, trust, or customary practice, or otherwise in connection with his employment as a person or servant," and it then carries on as to the contracts of the employing companies. Now, if a man is invited by an advertisement, which offers, or suggests that he shall have pension rights, to undertake a job which at the time looks like being permanent, I should have thought that was getting precious near the kind of language that is used here.
I want to put it a little more broadly. These people, we are told, and it is not denied, came from outside. They came into a particular skilled kind of office work in a public corporation, and I imagine they felt they would get the kind of treatment that people who go into the Civil Service get. I am certain that was the sort of thing they had in mind, and it is borne out when we look at the terms of the pension arrangements, which, I hope the Minister will agree, are modelled on what is prevalent in the Civil Service. There is the same old formula about the number of years, and the rest of it, that dates back to some 19th Century Act in connection with the Civil Service.
These people seem to me to have been misled. They could assume that they were going into a public service in respect of which pensionable arrangements would be made for an employment of long, practically indefinite operation, and that they have abruptly, owing to this piece of legislation, been deprived of it. So much for the pension.
But there is another matter; they were also promised compensation for loss or diminution of emoluments. So far as I can see—I am sure I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that has been entirely omitted. They are entitled to this widow's benefit, as I call it, as resettlement compensation for a very short period, but suppose in fact, as a result of this change, they get another job, and get it at considerably lower emoluments, that is specifically the case that was to be covered by the Regulations made

under this subsection. It is covered, of course, in the case of servants of the company, and it was also promised under this subsection to officers or servants of the Corporation. Why do they not get it? There may be argument about their strictlegal right to a pension. There cannot be very much about their moral right to it, I should have thought. When it comes to loss or diminution of emoluments, I do not know what the Minister's answer is. Why were they promised that in the Act, and why are they now not entitled to have that promise fulfilled?

11.12 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not yield to these blandishments. I confess I cannot hope to know very much about the subject, but it is perfectly apparent from the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that no promise was given, that it was presumed that pensions would be paid, that it was imagined that pensions would be paid, that people thought they were joining a kind of Civil Service. These aparently were just attractions in an advertisement which invited these 60 persons who knew nothing about, the steel trade to come into the industry, and they are now trying to claim pensions.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman said he knew nothing about the matter. In that, in this point, he was absolutely correct. He said they were not led to expect there was to be a pension scheme set up. I have the advertisement here to which they replied:
Persons appointed may be required to join a contributory pensions scheme which the Corporation intend to set up in due course.

Sir W. Darling: "May be required." If the right hon. Gentleman will make much out of that he can talk to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering. There was not a promise of a pensions scheme, and the Parliamentary Secretary takes his stand apparently on that premise, and I want to support him. The present large appetite for pensions in this country seems to be becoming endemic. This will be soon an entirely pensionable community. The other day it was pensions for policemen, and a little while ago pensions for retired officers, and now there is this specious claim for no doubt deserving men and women who joined


this industry, who knew it to be precarious.
They were men and women with practical knowledge who knew this proposition was being forced on the country by the Socialist Government, and was a policy which was resisted apparently by half the nation. In spite of those plain facts they came forward to join something as though it were as permanent as the Civil Service. If they had been wise in their generation then, no doubt, in the few months they were in office they would have seen that this pensions scheme was set up; they could have seen that the promise which apparently was inherent in their minds was brought into very rapid being. If it was not they should be indicting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), who had a good deal to do with it, for not having set it up. He did many things; why did he not do that? Those who are not getting the pensions now should not lay the blame on this Government but lay the blame on the previous Government who were so busy doing other things they neglected to attend to the circumstances borne in the minds of those who joined the party.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will remember the Government he represents. This is a Government who are hard pressed financially in many directions, and it is not for him to interpret in any generous terms these arrangements whereby public money is to be freely dissipated. I hope he will resist this specious plea by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall and stand by the rigid letter of the law. No more; no less; preferably less.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: I wish to take a contrary view to that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). I feel a great deal of sympathy with the case made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), but I was surprised at his naivety in that he found himself unable to understand the failure of the Treasury to keep a promise. He should know by this time that there is a well-established precedent for that, when we are dealing with matters of pensions. The right hon. Gentleman

should be well aware that there are many cases in which the Treasury goes back on its promises with regard to pensions.
It may be considered irrelevant in this discussion to go into the matter of the pensions for certain officers in which I am interested in another connection, but the parallel is very much in point. As I understand his case, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall says that a particular inducement was held out to people to accept a particular post on the under standing that when the time came for a pension to be awarded to them that would be done—

Sir W. Darling: No, only considered.

Mr. Marlowe: It would be considered. My hon. Friend says that it was to be considered. I could cite a much stronger case where it was promised, where a contract was made on the basis that a particular pension would be paid at a particular time; and by some calculation which the Treasury was able to arrive at it was able to say, "We have now decided that the pension should be greatly lowered."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is going far beyond the matter under discussion.

Mr. Marlowe: I do not wish to weary the House with another subject, but I am merely putting this forward as an illustration of the point made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I thoroughly understand the case he has made. He is saying that there is a casewhere there was a bargain made—

Sir W. Darling: No bargain.

Mr. Marlowe: An anticipated bargain, and the bargain was not kept. I merely wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not be surprised when these things happen. Apparently it is a well-established practice for the Treasury to enter into bargains of this kind and, when it suits them, to back out. I hope that the extension of this principle will not be carried any further.
I have not heard what this will cost, but I should like to know what the cost will be. We understand there are 60 people involved, and I should like to know if there is any cost falling on the Treasury. It may be that there is none, but I think


we are entitled to know before leaving this matter, and whether any expenditure involved is equivalent to the £200,000 which the Government refused to the pensioned officers in whose case I am particularly interested.

11.20 p.m.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I can assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) that there will be no payment from the Treasury. The money which has to be found by the Agency will come from its own revenues.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and other hon. Members concentrated their remarks on the compensation to be given in the event of loss of one kind or another suffered by members of the staff of the Corporation as a result of the processes of de-nationalisation. I wish to correct the impression that there has been any act of bad faith, or any failure on the part of the Government to carry out any assurances given during the debates on the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that we had promised in some way or another that Regulations would be introduced to give the kind of benefits he has been claiming this evening—that is to say a complete departure from the provisions of the eight year rule which was well established in previous compensation Regulations. I should like to draw his attention to the terms of the Act itself. Section 24 states
The Minister shall, by regulation, require the payment by the Agency in such cases, and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations.
Obviously, now that the matter has come before the House for the first time, it is for discussion whether the Regulations go far enough. However, nothing in the Act says that a particular type of compensation is to be granted. Under subsection 3 these Regulations apply to officers and servants of the Corporation.
The last thing in the world I would wish is that there should be any suggestion that we are treating anybody shabbily. I have taken the view that, if there is any doubt whatever, we must do a little more, if necessary, than is absolutely fair so that there can be no possible suggestion that any body has been unfairly treated because of this legislation.
Under the original draft of the Bill as presented to the House, as the right hon. Gentleman may remember, there was no mention whatever of a compensation scheme for the staff of the Corporation. The reason was that all compensation schemes were based, apart from the short-term resettlement, or the widow's benefit as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) described it, on the eight-year period of service. As the staff of the Corporation could not possibly qualify under the eight-year rule, we left them out in the original draft of the Bill. At a later stage, as a result of discussion in the House, they were brought in under a subsection of Section 24.
In doing so, I said:
The second Amendment relates to compensation for officials and employees of the Iron and Steel Corporation. This was not referred to in the original draft because the period of their service has been too short to qualify them for compensation under any of the Regulations so far issued. The possibility of bringing employees of the Corporation within the scope of the compensation regulations which might in due course be issued should not be excluded in advance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 1950.]
That is all I committed myself to doing, namely, bringing the staff of the Corporation within the terms of the compensation arrangements notwithstanding the fact that they would not in any normal conditions nor in accordance with previous precedents, qualify for compensation under the eight-year rule. That is the only commitment I made to the House. We did not wish to exclude by legislation the possibility that the staff of the Corporation might be included in the compensation schemes. That is what we have done. We have included them, but have not been able to give them compensation on a scale which would not be granted to anybody else in similar circumstances. That is the difficulty of the situation.
As my hon. Friend explained earlier, we have followed closely the terms of the Transport Denationalisation Regulations, which have been approved by the House. We should get into great difficulties if we introduced a different set of Regulations for compensation in different industries. The circumstances are in almost all respects absolutely identical. There is one difference, and that is that a certain number—I do not know how


many, but I doubt whether it is by any means all—of the staff of the Road Haulage Executive had previously been employed in the road haulage industry. Therefore it was quite possible that by adding the period of service under the Executive to the period of service in some other capacity in the industry, they were able to make up the eight-year period, and therefore to qualify. That does not happen in the case of the Iron and Steel Corporation staff who, almost without exception, were not previously employed in the industry.
The question really is whether people who have served a body for different periods until the Corporation was dissolved, some two years and nine months at most—we are not talking about short-term resettlement compensation but about long-term compensation—are entitled, to the same extent as a person who has worked all his life, or for a great number of years, in an industry, to what is described as "long-term" compensation. That is the issue.
The fact is that we are, under these Regulations, providing compensation for the staff of the Corporation on exactly the same basis as for the Road Haulage Executive, subject to the fact that their service may be different, and as for the workpeople throughout the whole of the iron and steel industry. I would find very great difficulty, and so I think would hon. Members on all sides of the House, in providing compensation terms for the staff of the Corporation which were superior, better and more advantageous than the compensation which we are offering to the working men in the iron and steel industry. What is suggested here is that we should accept the period of two years and nine months as the qualifying period for long-term compensation. I would find it very difficult to refuse compensation to a steel worker who, owing to denationalisation, lost his job, while the administrative staff of the Corporation should qualify for it. We should get ourselves into great difficulties and I do not see how we could possibly justify it.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the staff had been led to expect some scheme when they joined the Corporation. That is true, but it was more, as the right hon.

Gentleman read it out, a warning that there might be a contributory scheme. But, as my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary has already explained, this matter has by no means been neglected in the short time that the Agency has been in existence; it has now produced a scheme to meet just this kind of case. As has been explained, the members of the staff, under this scheme, will qualify for a cash payment at a stated date, or a deferred annuity; calculated in each case by reference to service and salary, and an important aspect of that is that in calculating service, service with the Corporation will be added to service under the Agency.
I only wish that this scheme had been made known to the members of the staff of the Agency at an earlier date; but we have had discussions over a number of months, and it was only in the last few days that the scheme has been made known. I say this because I think that the attitude of the staff of the Corporation might have been different if they had known of the scheme. I hope, and I have every confidence, that they will feel reassured by announcement of this scheme.
That, broadly, is the position and, in addition to this, we are providing a resettlement benefit—short-term compensation. I am assured that the Agency is as anxious as hon. Members in all parts of this House to see that cases of special hardship do not get overlooked. It is prepared to deal specially with cases where hardship arises; but I am hopeful that hardship, or loss, or injury, at any time will not occur. So far as other employment is concerned, I can tell hon. Members that, with the exception of one person, who has found employment elsewhere, all the members of the staff of the Corporation are now employed by the Iron and Steel Board, or the Agency, I have no doubt that it is most unlikely that there will be any cases of hardship arising from de-nationalisation any more than there were as a result of nationalisation.

Resolved,
That the Draft Iron and Steel (Compensation to Officers and Servants) (No. 2) Regulations, 1953 [copy presented, 20th November] be approved.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the payment of Exchequer Grants to local authorities in Scotland in lieu of the grants payable to such authorities under Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, and, among other things, for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, in respect of the year beginning with the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, and of any subsequent year beginning with the sixteenth day of May, of grants to local authorities in Scotland amounting in the aggregate to a sum equal to eleven-eightieths of the total amount certified by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to have been paid in respect of the twelve months ending on the thirty-first day of March falling within the year in question to local authorities in England and Wales by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grants under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948.

Orders of the Day — GRADUATE TEACHERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: I make no apology for raising the subject of graduate teachers' salaries tonight, although the Minister of Education has not yet received the recommendations from the Burnham Committee. But she will appreciate that this may be the last opportunity of doing so before the Christmas Recess, which will begin three weeks from now, and that she will probably have to take a decision upon the decision upon the recommendations before Parliament meets again in the latter part of January. We know what the recommendations of the Burnham Main Committee are going to be, and I wish tonight to concern myself with the proposed differential known as the Graduate Addition. This is that the present provision relating to an addition of £60 for men and £48 for women graduates will remain as it is at present. There is a new proposal under which all First Class Honour graduates will receive an additional allowance at the rate of £30 for men and £24 for women, and at the discretion of local

education authorities Second Class Honour Graduates may receive the same addition.
In my opinion, this proposed differential between graduate and none-graduate teachers does not go nearly far enough, and I hope that the Minister, who has no power to alter the recommendations, will send them back to the Burnham Committee to ask them to reconsider the recommendations in this respect. I ask this on two grounds; first, in justice to the special position and responsibilities of graduate teachers; and secondly, on national grounds.
I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that before the war the differential between graduate teachers and non-graduates was about 25 per cent., which has now been reduced to approximately eight per cent. Non-graduates take the General Certificate of Education at 16, and can enter gainful employment until obtaining a vacancy at a teaching college, usually at the age of 18, and then, apart from the requirements of National Service, they can start teaching two years later; whereas the would-be graduate has to obtain his university award at the age of 18 and often 19, and then he has to undergo four years education and training, as a result of which he emerges far better qualified for his life's work.
The work of those who teach in sixth forms, coaching scholars for Open Awards, is comparable to that of a first year in a university, and only those with high academic qualifications can measure up to this responsibility for which they should be adequately paid. I personally believe that if these recommendations are accepted, grammar schools in particular, whose staffs are 80 per cent. graduates, are going to suffer, and that the effect upon the nation will be unfortunate. I believe that the threat to grammar school efficiency is a threat to national efficiency at a high level. The high standards attained by the grammar schools in the last 50 years constitute one of the outstanding features of English education, and it is, to my mind, essential that grammar school masters should be men and women of high intellectual attainment and personal qualities.
A month ago, on the initiative of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine), we debated the shortage of science teachers, which is already the direct result


of inadequate remuneration. I believe that no longer will we get adequate graduate recruits to the teaching profession unless the differential is raised. More and more would-be teachers are choosing the two-year course, and this cannot be considered to be progress in education.
I have said that we know what the recommendations of the Burnham Committee amount to. But unfortunately we also know that they are not unanimous recommendations but only those of a majority, for they have been emphatically rejected by the Joint Four Associations which in particular represent grammar school teachers.
I am sure that the Minister will not allow herself to be misled by the fact that the National Union of Teachers has approved these proposals, because non-graduate teachers are the great majority among its members. Is the Minister satisfied that the Burnham Committee, as it is at present constituted, satisfactorily represents the interests of graduate teachers? It seems to me to be heavily weighted in favour of non-graduate teachers. This is inevitable, since these are in the vast majority. Does not the Minister think that their interests ought to be represented by a separate panel, as was, in effect, achieved by the Burnham Committee which existed before the Education Act of 1944.
Nor am I happy about the proposal to increase mandatorily the increment of first-class honours degree graduates by £30 for men and £24 for women, and permissively for those holding second-class honours degrees. This is unfair because universities and faculties have different standards. For example, I am informed that often approximately 30 per cent. of chemistry graduates at one university receive first-class honours, whereas only 3 per cent. of English graduates at another normally obtain this distinction. Everyone knows that universities encourage teachers to take general degrees, and only some universities give honours in general degrees.
Then there is the special position of those whose university careers were interrupted by either of the two world wars, and who therefore obtained unclassified degrees which were nevertheless honours degrees. How are they to be treated?

To sum up, there is no doubt that more and more school teachers are becoming gravely dissatisfied with the failure of the Burnham Committee to recommend any improvement in the amount of the Graduate Addition, apart from the trifling increase proposed for the holders of first-and some second-class honours degrees, or to provide compensation and encouragement for teachers who delay their entry into salaried employment to follow extended courses of training and study at the universities. They are equally disappointed that no substantial improvement is recommended in the arrangements made by the local education authorities for the payment of special allowances in respect of special responsibility and work of special value.
The position is all the more serious because discontent is most marked among the teachers in those schools which have to carry an increasing responsibility for the education of the nation's ablest children. The number of boys and girls in the sixth forms of the grammar schools has already greatly increased. During the next few years, when the post-war increase in the birth rate will have its effect on the number of boys and girls in the grammar schools, staffing difficulties will become still more acute, particularly in certain subjects, and at certain levels of teaching.
There can be no doubt that the grammar schools are going to be unable to recruit and retain the services of sufficient teachers of the quality which is required unless they are able to offer salary scales comparable with the awards that could be obtained in any other profession.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) is wrong in assuming that the National Union of Teachers does not represent graduate teachers. There are, as a matter of fact, as many graduate teachers in the membership of the National Union of Teachers as there are on the other bodies in the joint organisation. The hon. Member is also wrong in stating that this Award was carried only by a majority. Voting on the Burn ham Committee is by panels, and each panel votes as a unit. This Award was agreed to by both panels on the Committee—by the Teachers' Panel and by


the Local Authorities' Panel—so it was not carried by a majority; it was carried by the decision of both panels.
I quite agree with the hon. Member that there should be an even bigger graduate allowance than was actually awarded, but that was not the fault of the teachers' representatives. The Teachers' Panel put forward a claim for a graduate allowance of £125 instead of the present allowance of £60. I would point out that the hon. Member did not relate the full story about the present graduate allowance, because there is not only a graduate allowance of £60, but also an allowance of two increments of £36 for the additional two years of training which the graduate undertakes. So in practice the graduate allowance is not £60 but £96, and in the new Award there will be £30 for a first-class honours degree and £30 for a good second-class honours degree.
As it will be very difficult for local authorities to decide what is and what is not a good second-class honours degree, we can assume that everybody with an honours degree will get £30, and the total addition to be received by the graduate, provided he has an honours degree, will be £126. The teachers asked for a graduate allowance of £125, plus more for the incremental addition, and tried very hard to get it, but they were not able to convince the local authorities. It is to the local authorities that the hon. Member should direct his arguments in this matter and he should not make very unjustified criticisms of the National Union of Teachers.
The Parliamentary Secretary wants at least 10 minutes to reply, and I have only one more minute to deal with the argument put forward by the hon. Member, but I do hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not advise his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to send back the recommendations of the Burnham Committee. That Committee is a duly constituted, statutory committee, set up by Act of Parliament, and both sides of the Committee have agreed to this Award. If the Minister turns down the Award of a negotiating body to which both sides have agreed, it will strike a very deadly blow at all negotiations.
I should have thought it would be something with which hon. Members on both sides of the House would strongly

disagree. I say that the Award has not satisfied everybody, but it is an Award agreed to by both sides—the teachers side and the employers' side.

Mr. M. Lindsay: I do not want to interrupt, but the hon. Gentleman said it is an agreed Award. How can he say that when it has been emphatically rejected—

Mr. Morley: But the organisations are represented on the Burnham Committee. Each have their due proportion of representatives. The Joint Four have their representatives on the teachers' panel, as well as the National Union of Teachers, and the teachers' panel as a body, including the representatives of the Joint Board, agreed to accept the last offer of the authorities' panel because their experience during the negotiations had convinced them that no more could be wrung from the authorities. So far as the Burnham Committee is concerned they are agreed recommendations, and I certainly hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think of advising the Minister that she should turn down the agreed recommendations of a statutory negotiating body.

Mr. George Wigg: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Pickthorn.

11.51 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): I am very sorry indeed, but I think I should be more to be criticised if I did not rise now. The House will have observed from both hon. Gentlemen, for whose moderation I am indebted, the considerable extent to which they cancel each other out, though I do not think myself likely wholly to agree with either of them. I think that may be evidence to the House that this is a very complicated matter. To discuss the details of what is to be a salary scale arising out of a Burnham Committee discussion—at a stage where the Committee have still to meet once more, I think in a fortnight's time, to discuss what still has no statutory effect—would be an innovation, and it would be of doubtful propriety for the House here to endeavour either to induce or advise the Minister to make a decision before the meeting which will happen in a fortnight's time. That would plainly be improper.
I think it would also be improper if I said anything in discussing this matter which might seem to encourage or discourage either of the professional sections or the individual persons who will be at that meeting. I should be very much open to criticism if I said something which might seem either to strengthen or weaken any variety of opinion in that meeting. I can assure the House, and I do not think the House needs assuring, through its knowledge of the Minister's conduct in office—and if the House pays enough attention to me it may know well enough my own views from the whole of my curriculum vitae—that neither of us is likely to underestimate the value or the importance of the grammar schools to the national life and national survival.
There were two points mentioned to which I should refer. One was about the University "A," where 30 per cent. of chemists get firsts, and the University "B," where only 3 per cent. of English graduates get firsts. I deprecate all such comparisons very much, but in so far as an argument can be based upon them, it rather busts the hon. Gentleman's argument. I myself have, only naturally, a persona] prejudice in favour of graduates. But to argue that graduates vary almost infinitely in glory, like the stars in their courses, and then to argue that remuneration should continue to depend very largely indeed upon being a graduate, and not upon performance within the profession after being a graduate, and to have the argument about 3 per cent. and 30 per cent., really busts the hon. Gentleman's case.
One other small point, before I use my last few minutes going through what I had prepared to say—or to gallop through as much of it as I can in the time left. It is the point about unclassified honours degrees in war-time. I am not familiar with that subject. On the whole I think that those who came back afterwards, people who had had some wartime studies, rather benefited. They had been allowed terms, and so on. I shall make what inquiry can be made about the questions put to me on that point.
On the principal points made I think I have now said as quickly as I could the most important things to be said, and I now turn to what I had been meaning to say. There is not the slightest evidence

to suggest that the large increase in the number of the two-year teachers, those who come from the training colleges after two years, has been at the expense of the graduate teachers. The number of two-year students completing courses of training satisfactorily was 3,872 in 1939 and 9,191 in 1952. The number of graduate teachers completing courses satisfactorily was 1,744 in 1939, and was up to something over 3,000 in 1952. One would not expect the two to go at proportionately the same rate, but the fact that the second one, too, has gone up very considerably in that period disposes of the suggestion, for which there is no evidence, that people are being tempted, because of the insufficiency of the differential, to opt for training colleges rather than for universities. I do not think there is any evidence that that is happening.
My hon. Friend spoke of the differential in favour of the graduate, as exists at the present time. I think I could give more details, because I have had the best expert advice, than the hon. Gentleman opposite has given, but what the hon. Gentleman opposite said on that point may be sufficient for our argument to night. Neither averages nor comparisons with pre-war conditions are really very useful, but so far as we can get anything like an average, something like this may be said to be a reasonable guess: that the average graduate gets a salary 27 per cent. above the non-graduate at the bottom end and 13 per cent. above it at the top end. But that is leaving out the additional payment for special responsibility and value, which would add on to those percentages; and we must assume—otherwise the whole argument busts itself—that graduates will have an advantage in competition with other people in seeking positions of responbility and value.
I would not deny that there has been some levelling as between the two since the 1944 Act, and it is not my business, even if there were time tonight, to say whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. I would say only two things: it was indeed a levelling up, although to be fair to the House, one has to add, a levelling up in numbers of £sterling, and one must admit that various things have happened to the £ sterling since 1944. Secondly, although


a fall in the value of the £ sterling would be a fair enough argument for the necessity of the subsistence element in salaries being looked at again, it cannot be advanced as the ultimate argument, for obviously the inflationary spiral would become infinite and absolutely insuperable. It would mean that the moment that the £ sterling dropped another penny there would have to be another penny added to salaries—hon. Members will appreciate the point.
As to the adequacy of the Burnham system in general, about which I must say a word; that could not be discussed at sufficient length even were I given 29 out of the 30 minutes of this Adjournment debate. It is a very complicated subject. I am not certain whether it would require legislation. I do not assert that; I have not been able to make up my mind. Section 89 of the 1944 Act does not specify; it states that the Minister shall appoint one or more committees. But my right hon. Friend cannot now do anything except within the general background of the Act, and within the pattern of school organisation which has grown up under it.
If I may delicately hint at a critical tone, the hon. Gentleman seemed sometimes in his logic to shift feet from graduate teachers to grammar school teachers, as if the two categories were an identity. Anything of the sort he desires to be done would need a definition of "grammar school," which does not occur in the Statute. Even if it did not need legislation, it would have great practical difficulties because of the difficulty about what is exactly a grammar school. I am not suggesting it could not foe done. If the whole matter could be thrashed out no doubt it could be done, but it would

take long and detailed debating after long and detailed discussions outside, and it is not a matter upon which a junior Minister ought to pontificate in a half-hour debate.
I hope I have kept the "padding" down to a minimum and answered the main points, although it is difficult to do so at this, which is not the best moment or occasion for discussing either what are to be the rates of salary, or what the Burnham Committee is or should be; it is the moment when the Burnham people are coming to the end of their labours, but about which there is nothing officially publishable. I hope that what I have said has been relevant and that in the circumstances the House will think that I have said as much as can be said, and that is all which in the circumstances I dare attempt.

12.4 a.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for the statement he has made. I think it is a dangerous thing if we try to start a debate in this House. It will have to be argued out in the Burnham Committee. It will cause controversy in a profession in which it is important it should be felt that justice is being done. As the Minister pointed out, quite clearly the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) had not clarified in his mind the position of the graduate in the primary school.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Four Minutes past Twelve o'clock.